Segovia & Chet Atkins
Ron Slade
but very temperamental. As part of the class, each of us were asked to
perform one of our original compositions. A young lady began playing a
variation on a song (I don't remember which) using the tremolo technique.
Segovia stopped her after only a short performance and declared that only
one song should be played using the tremolo technique (Recuerdos de la
Alhambra). She was devastated and left the room in tears, it didn't phase
him and he continued as though nothing happened. I never took another
master class from him again.
I think that if Segovia thought that Atkins was anything except a purist, he
would have asked Atkins to leave sooner.
--
rsl...@global.california.com
John Sloan wrote in message <2D7102...@telusplanet.net>...
>I once saw a picture in a book by Chet Atkins showing
>him sitting next to Segovia, watching Segovia as the
>latter tuned his guitar. Under the picture was the
>caption: "With Segovia, before he found out I played
>electric."
>
>Anyone know anything more about this? Apparently,
>so the story goes, Segovia dropped him as a student
>when he found out he didn't play classical (or was it
>because he played electric guitar). I know that
>Atkins does play some classical pieces.
>
>I wonder what Atkins learned from Segovia?
>
>(I saw Atkins on TNN last night, playing beautifully)
>
>John Sloan
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
la...@my-deja.com
about Segovia: Once Segovia commented to a student saying something
like "you should cut off your thumb and grow a new one". The student,
after hearing that, was so devastated that the others asked Segovia if
he could do something about it (preventing the student to cut off his
thumb). Segovia located the student and said something like "don't do
it, the new one probably won't do any better!"
In article <38b99f7b$1...@news5.newsfeeds.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JimAllbery
<jsl...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> I once saw a picture in a book by Chet Atkins showing
> him sitting next to Segovia, watching Segovia as the
> latter tuned his guitar. Under the picture was the
> caption: "With Segovia, before he found out I played
> electric."
> Anyone know anything more about this? Apparently,
> so the story goes, Segovia dropped him as a student
> when he found out he didn't play classical (or was it
> because he played electric guitar).
It was because he played electric-- he could play classical
(for the last 20 years he has played predominately nylon-
string guitar, btw). The story I remember hearing is that
Atkins attended a couple of Segovia master classes under an
assumed name. He played classical well enough to pull it
off, but was eventually found out. Segovia refused to
accept someone who made his living from predominately
playing electric guitar.
I can remember the source of the story, though, so I won't
vouch for the accuracy.
> (I saw Atkins on TNN last night, playing beautifully)
Do you know if this was this a recent performance? He's
had a number of health problems over the last few years and
wasn't playing in public for a while.
--Jim
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
JCBENFIELD
cute story about playing guitar while on vacation with a bunch of strangers
sitting around him.
After playing for a while, one fellow leaned over and said "Hey, fella.
You're pretty damned good. --- but you ain't no Chet Atkins."
I have a feeling Atkins has a pretty good sense of who he is and doesn't need
any aprobation by Segovia or his fans.
Jim benfield
Spencer Doidge
<rsl...@global.california.com> wrote:
>I took one master class from Segovia. The guy was a very good guitarist,
>but very temperamental. As part of the class, each of us were asked to
>perform one of our original compositions. A young lady began playing a
>variation on a song (I don't remember which) using the tremolo technique.
>Segovia stopped her after only a short performance and declared that only
>one song should be played using the tremolo technique (Recuerdos de la
>Alhambra). She was devastated and left the room in tears, it didn't phase
>him and he continued as though nothing happened.
This is the behavior of a sociopath, as far as I understand the term
to mean one who is unaffected by the emotional states of other
persons. I do think, from hearing some of his recordings of Bach and
stories about his behavior, that the old guy was a very skilled
guitarist, but the elevator never quite went all the way to the top
floor. I think there must have been a few interrupted signal paths in
his main circuits.
Spencer Doidge
---------------------------------------------------
Reply to spen...@teleport.com
CDs and MP3s at
http://www.mp3.com/spencer_doidge
plus downloadable arrangements and compositions
for classical and fingerpicking guitar at
http://www.teleport.com/~spencerd
---------------------------------------------------
Spencer Doidge
> I have a feeling Atkins has a pretty good sense of who he is and doesn't need
>any aprobation by Segovia or his fans.
One could pick a lot worse role models than CA. He presents an image
of one who has mastered his ego, knows how good he is and how good he
isn't, and functions comfortably within that framework. This is a
prescription for a long life, I think, using this potentially most
therapeutic of instruments to enhance one's own existence and that of
his audience and students. I have never had the privilege of meeting
CA, but I count myself among his disciples.
Keith Erskine
: I heard Atkins play with the Houston symphony in the early 1970s. He told a
: cute story about playing guitar while on vacation with a bunch of strangers
: sitting around him.
: After playing for a while, one fellow leaned over and said "Hey, fella.
: You're pretty damned good. --- but you ain't no Chet Atkins."
: any aprobation by Segovia or his fans.
yes, Segovia could use some of Chet Atkins sense of humor. At the last
concert of his he related an oldie but a moldie:
"Just got my new bi-focals. They work great, but when I was at the
bathroom urinal enjoying the view of the big one, the little one was
peeing all over my shoes!"
:-)
Keith Erskine
I don't speak for HP.
Paul Miller
about Segovia's attitude towards Barrios. Someone wanted to know, rightly
so, why is it Segovia didn't play any Barrios pieces. Though I'm not crazy
about all of Barrios's works, some of them, like Sueño en la floresta, are
undeniable classics, and would have been wonderful additions to Segovia's
repertoire. Anyway, someone responded to that post saying that what Segovia
wanted at the time was to "elevate" the stature of the guitar by playing
Bach and introducing transcriptions by the great European composers
(pre-20th century, of course), and that it therefore would have been
counterproductive to these aims to play pieces by someone perceived as a
"gypsy." What's up with that? First of all, Barrios wasn't a gypsy, he was
a Guaraní mestizo, and even if he were, what kind of racist crap is that
anyway? I mean doesn't that exemplify racial prejudice -- judging Barrios
not on the merits of his compositions -- which have stood the test of
time--but on his supposed "race"? That is fucked up. In another posting
someone also cited a letter Segovia wrote during the Spanish Civil War
saying, "now that our side has almost won..." referring to the Falangists.
I've just about had it with the old man.
Paul Miller
Rogluthier <roglu...@aol.comniljunk> wrote in message
news:20000229215615...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> Paul wrote:
>
> >Anyway, someone responded to that post saying that what Segovia
> >wanted at the time was to "elevate" the stature of the guitar by playing
> >Bach and introducing transcriptions by the great European composers
> >(pre-20th century, of course), and that it therefore would have been
> >counterproductive to these aims to play pieces by someone perceived as a
> >"gypsy."
>
coming up
> he had to be very tough and single minded about everything he did in order
to
> succeed. I can see how he would be attracted to fascism and "strong
leaders"
> because Segovia was psychologically prepared to crush anyone in his way.
Could
> a less relentless personality have done what he did for the guitar when he
did
> it? Probably not. He held the stage well into our times but he was
really a
> man from another century trying to accomplish the impossible.
>
> In the final distillation he was both a great man and an uncompromising
> pain-in-the-ass jerk. That's life. That's art.
Who knows if Segovia was so indispensable? I'm not denying his
accomplishments, but it is possible that the guitar's comeback in the 20th
century can be attributed more to the temperament of the times than to the
travail of an individual "will." That is to say, maybe after a century of
symphonies and piano concertos the public was again ready for chamber music
and the plucked string. Given the popularity of the guitar in almost all
genres of music, it seems to have been almost historically fated that
someone like Segovia arrive on the scene. Maybe someone else would have come
along anyway, someone more open-minded and musically adventurous, maybe
with a 20th century understanding of Bach.
By the way, how do ´'serious musicians' regard the guitar today -- or
guitarists -- today?
Bob Ashley
> Given the way serious musicians regarded the guitar when Segovia was
> coming up he had to be very tough and single minded about everything he
> did in order to succeed. I can see how he would be attracted to fascism
> and "strong leaders" because Segovia was psychologically prepared to
> crush anyone in his way. Could a less relentless personality have done
> what he did for the guitar when he did it? Probably not. He held the
> stage well into our times but he was really a man from another century
> trying to accomplish the impossible.
>
> In the final distillation he was both a great man and an uncompromising
> pain-in-the-ass jerk. That's life. That's art.
As well written as Rog's synopsis is, it opens up for me a wider space of
tolerance for the old Spanish Spud.
The key question to my mind is Rog's, "Could a less relentless
personality...?" Poignant and difficult to counter the assertion this
question posits, I'd say.
All I remember of him when I was a kid is how scared I was of him. I
thought if I coughed at his Massey Hall concerts in Toronto, he'd have
had my entrails for next day's lunch. Once a guy's coughing did incite the
maestro to stop-mid fugue. He raised his hand in a rather limp but direct
way, like an emperor, like Augustus would do, and waited while an usher
escorted the hacker out of the hall. I was only 10 seats away wondering
what he did to kids who peed their pants. Probably killed them, I figured.
Or worse, made them do those bird-scales two hours everyday for his
torture practice just for a laugh.
Luckily, I got out alive, if damp, and slight uric. Even my father was
scared of Segovia, and my dad was pretty tough, a working class guy with
fingernails that looked like 40 miles of bad road, who knew the manifold
utilities of a tire iron. But I think Segovia would've still kicked my
dad's ass, maybe killed him too, with a flying elbow smash from the top
rope. Or a camel-clutch. Even at 95, which I think he was for the last 30
years of his life, like Clint Eastwood.
So, all is all, our family, the Ashleys, was pretty scared of Segovia.
...just a sec...
"MOM, were you scared of Segovia. ?.the newsgroup wants to know!"
wha?
say what?! Oh, okay.
She said, 'Ya,' but not as much as long as she took the big potato masher
to Massey Hall. I didn't know she did that. Had I known, I might have felt
a little safer. Mom, I love you.
Is is any wonder, though, I still can't stomach mashed potatoes to this
day?
Regards,
Rib
William Jennings
Roughly translated.
doc
John Wasak wrote:
Rogluthier <roglu...@aol.comniljunk> wrote:
[ in speaking of Segovia]
>
> In the final distillation he was both a great man and an uncompromising
> pain-in-the-ass jerk. That's life. That's art.
>
Most likely you're correct here, Roger. It's interesting how so many feel
that great artists should also be totally wonderful human beings, it's also
equally interesting to see how often this sentiment flies in the face of the
facts, if and when they become known.JW
John Wasak
>
> I can't stop thinking about another post I read here a few months back,
[SNIP]
>
> I've just about had it with the old man.
>
Don't worry, he can't upset you anymore.
JW
Rogluthier
>Anyway, someone responded to that post saying that what Segovia
>wanted at the time was to "elevate" the stature of the guitar by playing
>Bach and introducing transcriptions by the great European composers
>(pre-20th century, of course), and that it therefore would have been
>counterproductive to these aims to play pieces by someone perceived as a
>"gypsy."
Given the way serious musicians regarded the guitar when Segovia was coming up
he had to be very tough and single minded about everything he did in order to
succeed. I can see how he would be attracted to fascism and "strong leaders"
because Segovia was psychologically prepared to crush anyone in his way. Could
a less relentless personality have done what he did for the guitar when he did
it? Probably not. He held the stage well into our times but he was really a
man from another century trying to accomplish the impossible.
In the final distillation he was both a great man and an uncompromising
pain-in-the-ass jerk. That's life. That's art.
Roger Thurman
Thurman Guitar & Violin Repair, Inc.
900 Franklin Ave.
Kent, OH 44240
330-673-4054
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/Rogluthier/
25 years in repair, making and sales.
Martin - Fender Warranty Repair
Visa/MC Shipment on approval
John Wasak
[ in speaking of Segovia]
>
> pain-in-the-ass jerk. That's life. That's art.
>
Most likely you're correct here, Roger. It's interesting how so many feel
Rogluthier
>it seems to have been almost historically fated that
>someone like Segovia arrive on the scene.
>
I don't think anything is historically fated.
>By the way, how do ´'serious musicians' regard the guitar today -- or
>guitarists -- today?
>
>
That's a great question. I have had the unsatisfying experience of taking
other musicians to guitar concerts which left them disappointed and confused.
They don't "get it" because either the perfomance itself or the very sound of
the instrument is not sufficient to "hook" them. The guitar is vastly popular
but despite all development of playing and repertoire the classical guitar is
largely relegated to niche or "cult" status. I love the poetic, suggestive
aspect which so befits our instrument but you know how well poetry sells these
days.
This weekend I heard Michael Chapdelaine say that he has seen classical guitar
audiences dwindle steadily the past few years (since the death of Segovia,
IMO). He is now playing the steel string guitar (amplified) in an effort to
crossover. Parkening, ever paying hommage to Segovia, is able to crossover and
attract people to classical guitar but he is villified by the pillars of the
cult.
I really like something Chapdelaine said in a master class: We are not
priests, we are entertainers. Hardly profound, but just a statement of fact
from his point of view. At the worst his views are tinged with defeatism but is
he a defeatist or a realist? Close call.
I don't buy all of his iconoclastic observations but I like that he is
implementing them by following his muse and trying to show a way to make
contact with a larger audience. His demeanor is a bit world-weary but he
speaks and plays with passion and focus. He is sincere in his concern for the
guitar and I wish him success. He is certainly a fine guitarist and has the
true spirit of an artist who feels thwarted by forms which he seeks to
overcome.
I hope that what is really going on these days is that we are experiencing a
cyclical phenomenon. Since World War II the intense interest in the guitar has
propelled it to higher levels of development but the natural response to the
saturation is a shift toward other forms, even though the playing is generally
much better than before. We might expect another wave of interest at some
point in the future, perhaps at the advent of the next guitar messiah.
s...@randomc.com
>On 29 Feb 2000 04:48:52 GMT, jcben...@aol.com (JCBENFIELD) wrote:
>> I have a feeling Atkins has a pretty good sense of who he is and doesn't
> need
>>any aprobation by Segovia or his fans.
>One could pick a lot worse role models than CA. He presents an image
>of one who has mastered his ego, knows how good he is and how good he
>isn't, and functions comfortably within that framework. This is a
>prescription for a long life, I think, using this potentially most
>therapeutic of instruments to enhance one's own existence and that of
>his audience and students. I have never had the privilege of meeting
>CA, but I count myself among his disciples.
Me too. No one is easier to work with I hear. He can play anything style he
wants, plays with style, has a sense of humor. If I had to pick a mentor
between Segovia (too late now) or Atkins, it'd be Atkins.
Steve
Bob Ashley
> Me too. No one is easier to work with I hear. He can play anything style he
> wants, plays with style, has a sense of humor. If I had to pick a mentor
> between Segovia (too late now) or Atkins, it'd be Atkins.
Why not just take your paring knife and cut just the mould off your
Segovian old cheddar. That way, you can still savour the best of it with
the best of your Atkins apple pie.
Much do we guitarists stand to learn from our moms.
Regards,
Rib
Evan Pyle
regular 'house' guitarist on Prairie Home Companion. One Saturday he played
a tune and dedicated it to a friend who has passed somewhat recently. After
which he said 'I really miss him' and dissolved to tears. There was a
respectful hush of nearly a minute (big no-no on radio!) and the song
finally started out of this silence.
If an instrumental performer, especially in a 'popular music' setting, ever
had a more rapt audience, caught in the emotion of the moment, I don't know
when. Glad I tuned in that night!
<s...@randomc.com> wrote in message
news:89j630$t2t$3...@zrtph05m.us.nortel.com...
> In article <38bc3964....@news.teleport.com>, spen...@teleport.com
wrote:
> >On 29 Feb 2000 04:48:52 GMT, jcben...@aol.com (JCBENFIELD) wrote:
>
> >> I have a feeling Atkins has a pretty good sense of who he is and
doesn't
> > need
> >>any aprobation by Segovia or his fans.
>
> >One could pick a lot worse role models than CA. He presents an image
> >of one who has mastered his ego, knows how good he is and how good he
> >isn't, and functions comfortably within that framework. This is a
> >prescription for a long life, I think, using this potentially most
> >therapeutic of instruments to enhance one's own existence and that of
> >his audience and students. I have never had the privilege of meeting
> >CA, but I count myself among his disciples.
>
> Me too. No one is easier to work with I hear. He can play anything style
he
> wants, plays with style, has a sense of humor. If I had to pick a mentor
> between Segovia (too late now) or Atkins, it'd be Atkins.
>
> Steve
>
>
Rogluthier
encouraged him with classical guitar instead of scaring him off...Chet and
Andres the maestro playing some duets together on tour and on record.
Segovia saw the advantage of recordings to spread his fame but the pre-20th
century side of his personality prevented him from linking with someone like
Chet to help the classical guitar really take hold in the U.S. What a shame!
Another opportunity missed.
John Wasak
Didn't Chapeldelaine recently, in one of those guitar magazines, tell of his
own Segovia horror story? I recall it having something to do with his
playing in front of Segovia in a Master Class.
It's amusing in a way to hear that he intends to 'crossover' to steel string
guitar in what is, as you seem to describe, a search for a larger audience.
If he's still planning on playing as a solo instrumentalist, then I say
"Good luck". Steel string solo guitar instrumentalists are a dime a dozen
these days. Some are also quite good at what they do. I can't ever
remember seeing any solo guitarist on the Hit Parade.
I don't say this as something against Chapeldelaine only, but as a general
comment on the state of solo guitar playing and it's ability to hold sway in
the popular recording market.
JW
Bob Ashley
> I remember hearing Chet playing solos and accompanying poetry when he was
> regular 'house' guitarist on Prairie Home Companion. One Saturday he played
> a tune and dedicated it to a friend who has passed somewhat recently. After
> which he said 'I really miss him' and dissolved to tears. There was a
> respectful hush of nearly a minute (big no-no on radio!) and the song
> finally started out of this silence.
>
> If an instrumental performer, especially in a 'popular music' setting, ever
> had a more rapt audience, caught in the emotion of the moment, I don't know
> when. Glad I tuned in that night!
Whoa! A remarkable tale. Chet, Chet, gotta love that Chet.
Can you imagine Segovia in such a situation?
Didn't think so. Neither can I.
Regards,
Rib
John Rethorst
people so gifted in expressing feelings can be so untroubled by them.
There's some attention these days to art as moral illumination, as Iris
Murdoch and Martha Nussbaum have written. It makes artists' lives that
much more of a puzzle.
--
John Rethorst
Remove x to reply.
Larry Deack
>Anybody know if he played any classical pieces
> in that one? I wonder what other classical or former classical
> players he's worked with?
I know he has several fine transcriptions in Rich Fosters books of "gospel"
CG. I like them better than Foster's stuff. Is there anybody who doesn't
like Mr. Atkins? He doesn't have the best technique in the world but he's
proof that you don't need perfect technique to make great music. He seems
like one of the most likeable guitarists in the world.
John Wasak
>
> Picasso was also said not to be much fun to be around. It's a puzzle why
> people so gifted in expressing feelings can be so untroubled by them.
>
It's not such a puzzle really, great art usually demands that a great deal
of focused energy be placed upon ones art. The feelings of others are often
secondary to that art.
It's important to remember here that artists are not Gods, they're human
beings, with all the frailties that implies. It's very possible that many,
many people fall under the rubric of 'less than ideal people'. Luckily,
most people don't have biographies written about them. This is only the
fate of the well known. Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said something along the
lines that the thought of biography after death lends just one more fear to
dying?
JW
.
Paul Miller
public position, he came down on the right side. What memorializes better
the legacy of fascist agression in our dear-departed 20th century than
"Guernica"?
I'm not saying that artists always have to be "correct" to earn their
reputation of greatness. I like some of Ezra Pound's poems (and at least
Pound was honest and generous, despite being slightly deranged). But in
Segovia's case his attitude and politics had a negative direct bearing on
the music. His disdain of twentieth century music and his inflexible
attitude towards composers and other performers damaged the legacy of the
guitar, so that instead of sitting on the cutting edge of 20th century
musical expression, the classical guitar is still seen by non-guitarists as
something rather precious and pretentious. I'm sure Segovia would have
trampled Villa Lobos underfoot as well, but thank god V.L. was already an
important composer so Segovia had to tip his hat, publicly at least.
John Rethorst <jxret...@post.com> wrote in message
news:jxrethorst-01...@vanc07m03-185.bctel.ca...
> Picasso was also said not to be much fun to be around. It's a puzzle why
> people so gifted in expressing feelings can be so untroubled by them.
>
Bob Ashley
> Picasso was also said not to be much fun to be around. It's a puzzle why
> people so gifted in expressing feelings can be so untroubled by them.
>
> There's some attention these days to art as moral illumination, as Iris
> Murdoch and Martha Nussbaum have written. It makes artists' lives that
> much more of a puzzle.
To me, the puzzle is not. Western tradition has made it its pet project to
fashion a social construction of the artist as a transcendant being,
something of a moral arbitrator who sits 'up there'. The term 'masses' was
coined by an artists, someone like 'Yeats' or 'Pound' both of whom were
like typical poets--utterly stupid in matters but their own craft, but so
stupid as to think they could still pronounce on them, much as I am doing
right now.
Prior to the Renaissance artists were on par, in terms of social repute,
with masons, carpenters, bakers, and electricians, though I concede that
there were many fewer electricians back then, and even fewer jobs for
them. This is why they hung low for a few centuries, until the economy got
better. The guild, however, fell away to patronage of individuals by other
individuals. Another word for 'schmoozing' you might say.
The recent thread we had about performer histrionics evolves out the
tradition, a romantic perspective which held that artists looked through a
window of imaginative genius, a window unavailable to anyone else. And it
was dramatic! I think if some Romantics and Moderns had had their way,
they would have declared themselves a new species, something that had
evolved upward from those low creatures, that is, the rest of us.
The great benefit, however, is that whenever you witness the overarching,
overwheening, self-aggrandizing antics of someone calling themselve an
artist, you at least know you are in the presence of a weak, parsitic
mind. Weak, for all this person has done is to allow the transcendental
myth to set up its structures in his mind, unimpeded by critical or
creative scrutiny. Just like kid who gets sucked into a breakfast cereal
'cause the ad is cool. If you come across a sulking braggart of an artists
whose attitudes are top-down you can assure yourself that you've
encountered a conformist of the highest caliber. Someone whose sophmoric
ideas of logic finds a causal relation between the vestments and the
verisimilutude of his craft. Like an adolescent's judgment of self-worth
by the name on the label of the jeans they wear [and underwear, and
jacket, and socks, and cap, and shoes, and...well ad lib]
This is yet another reason why we should hail of the genius of a Chet
Atkins, who never fell for this artistic moralizing crap. But it is also
good reason to cast knitted brow towards the likes of stupid artists who
make of art their own pompous parade. I think art and ethics are different
spheres of enquiry and it's embarrassing to see artists, fools they
sometimes are, passing sentence on everyone else as they were magistrates
and the rest defendants. Something wicked this way came during the
Renaissance, something pathological. Fortunately, the beast is dull and
slow moving.
And also I'm glad that now we've got more electricians. It evens things
out, shows that there is still room to hope.
Regards,
Rib
Bob Ashley
> John Rethorst <jxret...@post.com> wrote :
> >
> > Picasso was also said not to be much fun to be around. It's a puzzle why
> > people so gifted in expressing feelings can be so untroubled by them.
> >
JOhn Wasak wrote:>
> It's not such a puzzle really, great art usually demands that a great deal
> of focused energy be placed upon ones art. The feelings of others are often
> secondary to that art.
I think this is just part of the posturing, the artist's privileged pose.
His parking space reserved with the sign of the 'palette', right beside
the 'wheel chair' sign for the reserved place of the disabled.
I'll grant that special access is warranted for the latter, but it's a
ripoff to everyone else if the former colonizes a reserved parking space.
For in any sphere of human endeavour, much 'focused energy' is demanded.
Specifically, I am thinking of those geniuses whose art is motherhood,
politics, religion, or the best cheeseburger in town, or the guy who
recreates the battle of Waterloo with miniature soldiers and gets every
detail right, right down to the last label on the last can of beans,
labels he has painted himself, BTW. There is no compelling reason to say
that fine art demands a lick more than these other things. Genius manifest
is manifold. In our culture, however, we only look for it with a monacle,
one-eyed.
The only other creature that does this is the duck. And one of the most
famous of that crowd we call 'Daffy'.
Regards,
Rib
Larry Deack
>Something wicked this way came during the
> Renaissance, something pathological. Fortunately, the beast is dull and
> slow moving.
I think your whole premise that this started in the Renaissance is flawed.
It seems to me that artist / shaman go way back in the history of humanity
as power figures in the group. Artists in most primitive tribes enjoy a
privileged status so I would have assumed this attitude about artists
started long before any written history. Pythagoras and others of his time
thought music was special and those who could play had a special place in
our world. It seems to me artists have always enjoyed a privileged status in
the power structure of virtually every society of humans.
William Jennings
Bob Ashley wrote:
>
>
> For in any sphere of human endeavour, much 'focused energy' is demanded.
> Specifically, I am thinking of those geniuses whose art is motherhood,
> politics, religion, or the best cheeseburger in town, or the guy who
> recreates the battle of Waterloo with miniature soldiers and gets every
> detail right, right down to the last label on the last can of beans,
> labels he has painted himself,
You would have gotten along well with M. Carcassi and Morzart however
Beethoven or Rafael Rabello
might have thrown you out the window. Take a good look at Paco de Lucia
sometime, he is one of the
very few guitar geniuses around and he can be a very dangerous man. He has
said this himself.
The distance between an artisan and high art is vast. The one paints a
pretty seascape in all it's
detail the other conveys to us the wetness and smell of salt air, the sound of
a tern and that deep mystery
beneath a benevolent and indifferent sky.
That cheeseburger is still a $2.00 item the bean label may be of no value to
most, banal seascapes are everywhere
but that painting of " Peggy's Cove" could be a cool 100K which is a drop in
the bucket of high art. It also may
have been a perfect battle ground in it's making and you know how much you
detest violence.
doc
JBlossick
>He doesn't have the best technique in the world
Just Curious..Compared to whom? I believe Mr. Atkins technique is the best in
the world for him..Do we cry impalement because he uses a thumb pick?
JohnB
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley wrote:
> >Something wicked this way came during the
> > Renaissance, something pathological. Fortunately, the beast is dull and
> > slow moving.
Larry wrote:
> I think your whole premise that this started in the Renaissance is flawed.
> It seems to me that artist / shaman go way back in the history of humanity
> as power figures in the group. Artists in most primitive tribes enjoy a
> privileged status so I would have assumed this attitude about artists
> started long before any written history. Pythagoras and others of his time
> thought music was special and those who could play had a special place in
> our world. It seems to me artists have always enjoyed a privileged status in
> the power structure of virtually every society of humans.
It's a complex subject, that's for sure, not one to rest on a single
premiss. It interpenetrates art, culture, history, and as you point out,
anthropogical elements. My premiss, though not expressly, treats of the
'romantic' and 'modern' socio-culture constructions, hoping to contrapose
these with the medieval idea of the guild and the artist as servant, not
master. One would need to define a geo-historical scope, widening or
narrowing as needed to really discuss this fairly. Asked to, I'd offer
than my is western culture since 15th-century. That is, the modern era and
the emergence of the modern nation-state
As far as artists 'always' enjoying a privileged status, this is quite a
round statement of universality. Can it hold?
Regards,
Rib
Bob Ashley
> Good point, Bob, as usual, and I agree ... well, I sort of agree.
> We're using the word "genius" a little loosely here, to refer to
> people who simply do something very well, as opposed to someone
> with extraordinary mental abilities, like, say, Richard Feynman
> who really *was* a genius; a man who did things that baffled even
> his peers - what we're talking about really isn't genius compared
> with the Feynmans of the world.
I'm glad you raised Feynman's name for this shores up my point about
finding genius with both eyes open. It always makes me laugh, though, that
definitions of genius always pivot around scholarly skills, which, it just
so happens, whoops, oh, look at that, isn't that what we do? Well what a
coincidence that the genii are us! My. I believe in Gardners model of
multiple intelligences, from spatial, kinesthetic, to mathematical, to
artistic, to social and so on. Traditional models of intelligence were
fashioned by some real lame brains, utterly oblivious to the bias built
into their tests. The new models allow, without apologizing, to say that
Wayne Gretzky is a genius, or Martin Luther King, or Jerry Seinfeld, or
Mother Theresa. In other words genius is a hub with many spokes radiating
to many peripheries; it is not magnifying glass that focuses light and
burns up paper. That's the drama we love throw in.
> I've met many people like the ones you've described (they are
> everywhere), and when I do I always have a great deal of private
> respect for them. Think of any human endeavor and these kind of
> people are there somewhere. When you really think about it,
> they're quite common - they just don't make the news very often
> because blood, craziness and stupidity attracts more attention.
> They're behind every streetlight that's working properly, every
> cup of tasty coffee, every book that doesn't fall apart at the
> seams a year after you buy it, every well-made guitar, etc.
Amen, amen.
Regards,
Rib
Matanya Ophee
> The distance between an artisan and high art is vast.
Not an argument we can object to, but you are mixing two separate
predicates. The artisan is a person, high art is the _product_ of
someone's work who may be a good craftsman, an artisan, or an artist.
It seems to me Bob was talking about the person involved, about the
resulting product. Of course the 9th Symphony is high art, and
Carcassi's Op. 17, variations on Go Tell Aunt Rodie, is a well crafted
piece of music, even though you probably never heard of it. All we
know about these people, Beethoven, Carcassi, Mozart, Paco de Lucia,
van Gogh, is what is visible from the outside, We cannot know if their
internal struggles are on a different level of intensity than the
hamburger maker's or yours or mine. All we see is the product, and
some gossipy things about the people. We judge the people by the
doo-doo they made. It is our judgement and our sense of smell at work.
Not theirs.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphée, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH, 43235-1226
Phone: 614-846-9517
Fax: 614-846-9794
Check out the Orphée Catalogue at:
http://www.orphee.com
Including the on-line guitar magazine titled: Guitar And Lute Issues
Matanya Ophee
>
>As far as artists 'always' enjoying a privileged status, this is quite a
>round statement of universality. Can it hold?
It cannot. When I was in this kibutz in the Negev in the late 40s, the
most privileged person in the entire community was the truck driver.
he was the only one with personal transportation and pocket money.
And when you consider the vast number of noblemen and military
officers publishing books and music and works of art under a
pseudonym, never revealing their real identity, you realize that being
a working stiff who writes or performs music for a living, was not
exactly a privileged position. Most musicians to day would agree with
this state of affairs.
Larry Deack
> Just Curious..Compared to whom? I believe Mr. Atkins technique is the
best in
> the world for him..
I'm sure after hearing him talk about his own abilities that he would agree
that his technique could improve. He makes lots of little flubs that he
knows he makes but it really has little to do with what he says in the
music. JW has almost perfect technique if you need a comparison. Some people
think JW is only a machine punching out perfect notes one after the other
but that's a musical judgment not a technical one. Most people acknowledge
that JW has great technique for controlling every note. Please don't assume
I don't like CA's playing nor do I wish he had better technique since he has
enough to do what he needs to do to make great music. Technique in the sense
I used it refers to playing with consistent control of the notes so that
every one can be heard. The use of such technique is quite another matter.
>Do we cry impalement because he uses a thumb pick?
Interesting assumption on your part that I referred to a specific technical
skill. No, I was referring to how clean CA's sound is compared to any number
of fine guitar players in several styles. I really don't think CA would have
any problem with this statement of mine since I've heard him say he thought
others over rated him as a player. Now Roy Clark has technique up the wazooo
and he doesn't even use anything like CG technique.
Bob Ashley
> The distance between an artisan and high art is vast. The one paints a
> pretty seascape in all it's
> detail the other conveys to us the wetness and smell of salt air,
> the sound of a tern and that deep mystery
> beneath a benevolent and indifferent sky.
This is the social 'construction' of the artist I was talking about. The
metaphors of 'high' and 'deep' fits in perfect with the myth of
transcedence to which the modern artist claims deeded title.
Your exact words might well be temporally transported, back 125 years, to
the French Academy of Painting's view of Manet. With the luxury of
history, we say now, with confidence that the French Academy was mistaken.
Such criticisms make no viable statement about art but they do make a huge
statement about the anxieties and prejudices of a particular era. This is
the history of art, neoclassicism is born out of its disdain for the
Rococco, and Modernism, like your satire of sentiment and the pastorale
above, has no use for the Victorian. The point is that there is fundament
of 'deep' or constellation of 'high' that we call in to decide the matter
of what is real art. All criteria set by motives, including those which
decide what is, or isn't, art.
Doc wrote:
> That cheeseburger is still a $2.00 item the bean label may be of no
> value to most, banal seascapes are everywhere
Such is the application of an economic criteria, the $2.00, first. Second,
is the application of 'popular approval'. Third is the application of
availabity. Thus, by implicature, applying this principle in reverse, we
say that fine art must: 1) cost lots of money to buy 2) must by loved by
everybody and 3)must be practically no where to be found (ie., rare)
Seriously, I do get your point, I think. And your point is local, it comes
from a town, called Modernism. I'd be arrogant to out and out discount
this view, since I argue, admittedly from the poverty of postmodernism.
What I mean, is that when I say you don't have a leg to stand on, I say it
while on my way down to hit the pavement myself. No fundaments, in other
words. All criteria all local. Universalism, transcendence, high, deep
these are just words for God.
Doc wrote:
> but that painting of " Peggy's Cove" could be a cool 100K which is
> a drop in the bucket of high art. It also may
> have been a perfect battle ground in it's making and you know how
> much you detest violence.
Ha. In the old Roman stories and legends there is always a tricky slave, I
suppose, the forerunner to the 'sneaky butler'. How do you think you
forwarded their aims. By snarl, or by purr?
Oh, which reminds me. I got kicked off-line by the slum lord before I got
to you on my list of people to thank for sending me info/music/. Tirade or
not, doc was still thoughtful and generous enough to send me samples of
his present work [it's way too hard for my infantile skills!], an orginal
arrangment of 'Summertime' by that Japanese guy Takimatsuishieokaenamenko,
and marital (or extra-marital) aid piece of seduction music that I think
Segovia used to get it on with Greta Garbo, and a neat arrangement of
'Oruba in my Shuba' by Leo Brouwer (sorry can't member the title, just
now). I've got some good fun out of this stuff, including the sex.
Thanks again. Now you can go back to being crazy as you've self-disclosed!
Regards,
Rib
Bob Ashley
> >From: "Larry Deack" Wrote:
>
> >He doesn't have the best technique in the world
>
> Just Curious..Compared to whom? I believe Mr. Atkins technique is the best in
> the world for him..Do we cry impalement because he uses a thumb pick?
Ya, sorta like saying Tiger Woods has got a flawed backswing! Or that
Wayne Gretzsky is too skinny to be the best hockey player of all time.
Criteria of excellence are always motivated by local interests.
Regards,
Rib
William Jennings
You know as well as I do that some men have no roots and their lives are very difficult! You have met a few here and there. Does the hamburger artist peer into the abyss for the invisible, I think not. But if he does and I certainly have no problem with that, he is crazy also and may as well come on in my kitchen with me. This leads to Kafka's ' Hunger Artist' but that's just a little too dark for doc these days. I prefer an inspired Strip Tease artist and a good Texas Bool Sheet artist to musical Con artist.
On the subject of caca, didn't S. Dali point out to us he sells us his caca. Another great artist of Florence wrote in his notebooks something to the effect most of mankind just went around making little piles of caca in their lives. He was busy painting a ceiling we still view today.
doc, no artist.
Matanya Ophee wrote:
William Jennings <jou...@texas.net> wrote:
> The distance between an artisan and high art is vast.
Not an argument we can object to, but you are mixing two separate
predicates. The artisan is a person, high art is the _product_ of
someone's work who may be a good craftsman, an artisan, or an artist.
It seems to me Bob was talking about the person involved, about the
resulting product. Of course the 9th Symphony is high art, and
Carcassi's Op. 17, variations on Go Tell Aunt Rodie, is a well crafted
piece of music, even though you probably never heard of it. All we
know about these people, Beethoven, Carcassi, Mozart, Paco de Lucia,
van Gogh, is what is visible from the outside, We cannot know if their
internal struggles are on a different level of intensity than the
hamburger maker's or yours or mine. All we see is the product, and
some gossipy things about the people. We judge the people by the
doo-doo they made. It is our judgement and our sense of smell at work.
Not theirs.
Matanya Ophee
William Jennings
Don't know what the hell happened.
John Rethorst
<jsl...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> We're using the word "genius" a little loosely here, to refer to
> people who simply do something very well, as opposed to someone
> with extraordinary mental abilities, like, say, Richard Feynman
> who really *was* a genius; a man who did things that baffled even
> his peers - what we're talking about really isn't genius compared
> with the Feynmans of the world.
Good illustration of something. Feynman was unquestionably a visionary in
physics but, in one of those later, popular-market books (title somewhat
like "My Goodness, Dr. Feynman"), he referred to philosophy as "low-level
balony", and had something less than charitable to say about music as
well. Hmm.
Mark Lee
> > >of one who has mastered his ego, knows how good he is and how good he
> > >isn't, and functions comfortably within that framework. This is a
> > >prescription for a long life, I think, using this potentially most
> > >therapeutic of instruments to enhance one's own existence and that of
> > >his audience and students. I have never had the privilege of meeting
> > >CA, but I count myself among his disciples.
> >
> > Me too. No one is easier to work with I hear. He can play anything
style he
> > wants, plays with style, has a sense of humor. If I had to pick a
mentor
> > between Segovia (too late now) or Atkins, it'd be Atkins.
Precisely why "Neck and Neck" (Atkins and Knopfler) is one of my favorite
albums. It oozes Atkins, a fine man, who is will to stretch just a little.
--
=============================================
Mark Lee - ml...@allwest.net - www.allwest.net/leefamily
Pain just means you're not dead yet. Ouch. Hooray.
schi...@up.net
100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
Bob Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> Regards,
>
> Rib
>
Let's not overlook the fact that (gereralization) artists, and in
particular performers, have a need for the response of the masses,
admiration, if you will. This trait could well be labled a character
flaw. The average person totally fears getting up in front of a group,
whether to speak, sing, dance or play.
Ray S.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bob Ashley
> Let's not overlook the fact that (gereralization) artists, and in
> particular performers, have a need for the response of the masses,
> admiration, if you will. This trait could well be labled a character
> flaw. The average person totally fears getting up in front of a group,
> whether to speak, sing, dance or play.
Can we mingle 'artist' and 'performer' vis a vis audiences? Is not an
artist automatically a performer when 'audience' enters the picture? I
guess in our chain of loose definitions we might just as well add
'audience'.
I'd suggest (yet another generalization) that the modern artist, at least,
holds his audience in contempt. The
novelists/poets/painters/dancers/musicians, many of these were anti-social
sulkers, disaffected, alienated, miserable saps. You had to be lest you be
charged with flirting with the unwashed. This why people like Pound were
suckers for fascism, and Yeats had his own ideas about a shiloh. Contempt
for non-artists was daily bread for these fools. More contemporary, John
Lennon, brilliant as he was, was as naive as kitten, politically. I see
him as being the very last Modernist. An era died when he did.
I think I'd opt to leave out the word 'response' in Rog's statement. Yes,
artists have need for the masses, but often not for responding to, but
rather for exploiting the artistic raw materials. Art is not created ex
nihilio, but in a socio-cultural context, inescapably, and hence, the
artist has nothing if he has not the culture he is born into. Art is not
created from within. It is stolen from without chewed surreptiously, then
barfed back under the false pretense that is 'orginal'.
Let me go out on an even thinner limb: Culture and communities make all
the stuff of art and it is merely the job of artists to act in the role of
pimples charged with bringing the stuff to the surface. Performance is
merely the final squeeze.
And maybe this is why artists are often so sore with people.
Regards,
Rib
Klaus Heim
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca.
..
Nobody likes my poetry. I put this down to being a misunderstood genius. I
continue on my path. My estate will make millions.
Klaus
Richard Roti
This thread sent me to my attic. I just got out with my dusty box of vinyl
records ... my quarry, an album I bought years ago entitled: The First
Nashville Guitar Quartet. Unfortunately, I cannot play the album as I no
longer own a turntable. But, be that as it may, it was produced in
Nashville with a copyright of 1979, RCA. The players in the quartet: Chet
Atkins, Liona Boyd, John Knowles, and John Pell.
I remember listening to the ten pieces many times and Chet definitely played
a classical guitar with a noticeably unique sound. I wonder if he used a
thumb pick? Although not in all the pieces, I do remember noticing the
contrast between the other players with their more traditional classical
sound and Chet with his unique articulation of some lead phrasing. The
pieces: Carolina Shout, Londonderry Air, Love Song of Pepe Sanchez, Skirts
of Mexico, You Needed Me, Bound For Boston, Washington Post March, Someday
My Prince Will Come, Rings of Grass, Rodrigo Concerto, and Brandenburg.
There is an interesting quote from Chet on the jacket: "As a musician, to
keep things interesting I've always tried to grow and expand into new areas.
In this album, I am proud to be a part of a quartet made up of some super
guitarists..."
I saw Chet in concert in Charlotte about two years ago. He was quite good,
humorous and very entertaining. He mostly played a hollow bodied electric
with blistering speed. However, he played an arrangement of Vincent on an
electric classical, with alternate tuning, that was truly beautiful. He
joked as he finished the piece that he could never make it all the way
through it without a few mistakes.
Keep playing,
Rick
Klaus Heim
news:9XAv4.6880$Ns2.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
This is all very interesting. As a European, I have only a vague idea, who
Chet Atkins is (I know, big faux-pas). I think I played an arrangement of
his in Guitar Player. What I can associate to, is this crossover idea, which
is so modern nowadays. As things go in life, I still have this book of Mario
Abril's 101 intermediate solos for the classical guitar, which my parents
bought for me, when I was 12. It has an almost surrealistic repertoire, with
arrangements of The Godfather, Fascination, She'll be comin' round the
mountain, Londonderry Air, and also Milan, Haendel, Sor and Tarrega. These
things are great, because they get people connected. I still have this Liona
Boyd record, Miniatures for the Guitar, no turntable, but I do remember
avidly listening to it. Now I hear you speaking of the Boyd/Atkins
collaboration, and, wham, another synapse in place. How stupid and
superfluous the new Metallica record sometimes may seem, it does more
towards promoting classical music, than a hundred Koyunbabas will. I learn
more about guitar from Friday Night in San Francisco or Uwe Kropinski or
Hendrix at Woodstock, than from another complete recording of the Bach lute
suites. Expanding into new areas, this is the right thing.
Klaus
P.S. If somebody would honor me with a short resume of Chet's life, I would
be most appreciate.
Richard Yates
>> > P.S. If somebody would honor me with a short resume of Chet's life,
I would
>> > be most appreciate.
Check out the current issue of Fingerstyle Guitar - it has an article
and bio of Chet Atkins. (And something oddly familiar on page 51.)
Mark Westling
performance, delivery and humility were all touching.
I have a copy of the John Knowles arrangement of "Vincent" that Chet Atkins
plays. It really is a lovely arrangement.
The guitar that Chet plays is made by Gibson and based on a design by Kirk
Sand of Laguna Beach, CA.
Regards,
Mark
"Richard Roti" <blue...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9XAv4.6880$Ns2.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
...
Mark Westling
Mark Westling
Yes, I've played them and they're wonderful instruments. Of course, the
sound is different than a naturally resonating classical guitar, but if
you're interested in an amplified CG sound, I'd highly recommend you check
them out.
Kirk's phone number is 949-497-2110.
Best regards,
Mark
"John Sloan" <jsl...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:2D7699...@telusplanet.net...
> Mark Westling wrote:
> >
> > The guitar that Chet plays is made by Gibson and based on a design by
Kirk
> > Sand of Laguna Beach, CA.
>
> Is that the flattened, solid-body nylon stringed electric
> that looks similar to a classical from the front? Have you or
> anyone else played that model? If so, how did you like it?
>
> John Sloan
>
Matanya Ophee
>I also saw Chet perform in San Juan Capistrano, CA a few years a go, and his
>performance, delivery and humility were all touching.
>
>I have a copy of the John Knowles arrangement of "Vincent" that Chet Atkins
>plays. It really is a lovely arrangement.
>
>The guitar that Chet plays is made by Gibson and based on a design by Kirk
>Sand of Laguna Beach, CA.
Clarification please: is the Gibson is the guitar he plays _today_ or
the guitar you heard him play a few years ago?
Reason I am asking is that a few years ago, actually quite a lot more
than a few (1975), Chet was playing this guitar in a TV show, and
spoke about its maker, one Hascal Haile from Tompkinsville, Kentucky.
So this friend of mine, one Barney Burns, an airline captain I used to
fly with a lot, made me come with him to Nashville were we got a car
and drove to Tompkinsville to meet Hascal. We ordered each a guitar,
and just by chance, Chet had just returned the guitar that he showed
on TV because he got another one. So I bought it right then and there.
Silly ol' me, I sold it to a friend in Israel some months later. The
one he made for me, I still have. This is the one Roger Thurman
refinished for me last year, and the one I keep by the computer when I
edit stuff. Hascal passed away quite some time ago and I don't expect
Chet would be still playing his guitars, nevertheless, interesting to
find out.
Murray Lang
> The guitar that Chet plays is made by Gibson and based on a design by Kirk
> Sand of Laguna Beach, CA.
One of these perhaps?
http://webserver.gibson.com/products/gibson/ChetAtkins/CECEC.html
http://webserver.gibson.com/products/gibson/ChetAtkins/StudioCECEC.html
Murray
John Favaro
a nice person, I once read something pretty funny in a review of Miles
Davis's autobiography. I don't remember the precise wording, but it went
something like this:
"After reading this autobiography of Miles Davis, one can't help but think
that, as in the case of Herbert van Karajan, the good Lord, in another one
of his fits of absent-mindedness, has managed once again to bestow a great
talent on a real asshole."
John
William Jennings
fact most have been rather inarticulate and may have said something like " Yea, I had to suffer
through various art history classes but I slept through them most of the time." They just paint and
know about what they do. No high minded conversations but mundane everyday reality,
needs, wants and bitches.
The high art I own is about six feet from the top of it's frame to
the floor. I stand corrected, there is
a hand painted rustic cross above the front door which is about
7 feet 9 inches. The remainder, lower
art, in various sizes, fall in the 5 foot range. Many of my paintings
just lean against the walls because
there is no more room and I don't want to leave them unattended
at another residence. I'm thinking of
moving and why make things more difficult for myself. Hope
this explains high art. ;-)
"and marital (or extra-marital) aid piece of seduction music that I think Segovia used to get it on with Greta Garbo"
You hit the nail on the head here. That little Torroba " Romance
de los Pinos " is a very effective
soft kill for the next victim. I have used it shamelessly,
lulling them into a false sense of security before dragging them off to
a cave with their eyes glazed over. In the hands of a young man you
could repopulate an entire
country with a few of these miniatures. I have used it to
copy Segovia to the nuance along with Prelude #1
by Ponce. Short, sweet and to the point.
" It also may have been a perfect battle ground in it's making and you know how much you detest violence."
This is what I mean by struggle. Finished things appear easy
and almost effortless to the casual
observer and sometimes other guitarist. What many do not realize
is that it is often a battle to
achieve that ease and flow.
doc
Bob Ashley wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, William Jennings wrote:> The distance between an artisan and high art is vast. The one paints a
Bob Ashley
JimAllbery
Matanya Ophee <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
> Clarification please: is the Gibson is the guitar he
> plays _today_ or
I'm pretty sure that Chet still owns at least one Hascal
Haile classical, as well as a Ramirez, at least based on an
interview I read a couple of years back. He used to
perform with a Haile guitar, but the desire for more
amplification with less feedback led to his association
with Kirk Sand and the endorsement contract with Gibson.
Gibson offers two different Chet Atkins nylon-stringed
electric classical guitars, and both types are available
either with a traditional classical width nut or a slightly
narrower nut. He generally performs today with a Gibson
Chet Atkins CEC, however, on his most recent instructional
video, he uses a custom Kirk Sands guitar.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Spencer Doidge
<Paul...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I can't stop thinking about another post I read here a few months back,
>about Segovia's attitude towards Barrios. Someone wanted to know, rightly
>so, why is it Segovia didn't play any Barrios pieces. Though I'm not crazy
>about all of Barrios's works, some of them, like Sueño en la floresta, are
>undeniable classics, and would have been wonderful additions to Segovia's
>repertoire. Anyway, someone responded to that post saying that what Segovia
>wanted at the time was to "elevate" the stature of the guitar by playing
>Bach and introducing transcriptions by the great European composers
>(pre-20th century, of course), and that it therefore would have been
>counterproductive to these aims to play pieces by someone perceived as a
>"gypsy." What's up with that? First of all, Barrios wasn't a gypsy, he was
>a Guaraní mestizo, and even if he were, what kind of racist crap is that
>anyway? I mean doesn't that exemplify racial prejudice -- judging Barrios
>not on the merits of his compositions -- which have stood the test of
>time--but on his supposed "race"? That is fucked up. In another posting
>someone also cited a letter Segovia wrote during the Spanish Civil War
>saying, "now that our side has almost won..." referring to the Falangists.
>
>I've just about had it with the old man.
>
>
>
We are likely to be the last generation to remember him. As Segovia
was the first famous classical guitarist in the US, so was the
Commodore among the first personal computers in the US. I think that
his significance will wane with time, as has almost every performer in
history. Better players are already among us.
Spencer Doidge
---------------------------------------------------
Reply to spen...@teleport.com
CDs and MP3s at
http://www.mp3.com/spencer_doidge
plus downloadable arrangements and compositions
for classical and fingerpicking guitar at
http://www.teleport.com/~spencerd
---------------------------------------------------
racerx
Doidge) wrote:
Eh, I disagree, Segovia & guitar are glued together with some pretty
sticky adhesive. Much like wedding vows 'for better or worse, till
death do us part', and guitar ain't dead nor dying in my opinion.
I mean, what did the guy do so bad? Did he kill anyone? So maybe
the realities of him are far from the propagandizing idiots who claim
his legacy to be something that it's not. But still, who here is a
perfect guitarist, and a perfect gentleman/gentlewoman? I think the
general guitar community knows his faults backwards by now, but they
aren't so great that Segovia should be remembered as 'just another
guitarist'. That's not right. How would you like for someone to say
"Damn, that Spencer Doidge sure was no good, let's forget he played
guitar and write him out of history." Pretty funny ne?
Let me borrow that crystal ball sometime, I've always wanted one!
racerx(who rarely posts anymore, but is bored today)
git...@webtv.net
because of his signifigance, much the same way Elvis or the Beatles will
be remembered. Get over it!
Ciy Slicker
John Wasak
I interpreted Spencer's comments to be not so much critical of Segovia but
merely pointing out that as time goes on even the greatest of players, those
who in their own time enjoyed great renown, are often forgotten by future
generations.
Prior to the modern era and the benefit of recordings, it was easy to forget
the playing of a previous great. It will be interesting to see if, and for
how long, recordings can keep the flame burning for the great players of
the recent past and those playing today.
JW
git...@webtv.net
My point is that Segovia's legacy does not lie in his ability to play
the guitar but rather his importance in the history of the instrument.
Recordings will actually do more to hinder him than help. If it not for
the fact that we can still hear him he would probably gain mythological
status.
City Slicker
Charles Wilson
excluding myself in all cases) City Slicker has just stated what may be
a pure and logical point without his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek.
Even a newbie can appreciate that!!
Or did I miss something in my dangerous innocence that one of you would
like to point out? After hearing the epic tales of Segovia, it was
almost a letdown to hear his merely wonderful (not godlike) playing.
But, his dogged pursuit of getting the guitar "out there" cannot be
denied, can it? If it cannot, he has his place in history and will be
worthy of praise and derision for decades, nay, centuries to come.
areiher
<rac...@cyber-wizard.com.nospam> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:02:51 GMT, Spence...@nospam.com
(Spencer
>Doidge) wrote:
>
>Eh, I disagree, Segovia & guitar are glued together with some
pretty
>sticky adhesive.
I agree with your disagrement!
> Much like wedding vows 'for better or worse,
>till
>death do us part', and guitar ain't dead nor dying in my
opinion.
>I mean, what did the guy do so bad? Did he kill anyone? So
maybe
>the realities of him are far from the propagandizing idiots who
claim
>his legacy to be something that it's not. But still, who here
is a
>perfect guitarist, and a perfect gentleman/gentlewoman?
Yes... people in general in their "who is my idol ?" have a hard
time to accept someone ( most of the time a simple-complexe
Human!) living by its "true colors".
Everyone eard about Bill Clinton true colors in USA and as I
understand he is still their president and he will survive down
in history. But in my armchair theory, how can I tell what will
happen to all this fame thing 300 years down the line?
Maybe an editor, somewhere will try to commercialise the
"integral work of Andres Segovia, Composition and recordings, a
taste of the 20 century and the guitar of its time, an ancester
of our Bionic guitar"
> I think
t>he
>general guitar community knows his faults backwards by now, but
they
>aren't so great that Segovia should be remembered as 'just
another
>guitarist'. That's not right.
Only history can tell! I think right now his reputation is
passing the test. You know the good the bad, the opinion blabla,
and fight and "he does not deserve it... Oh! Ya! I have seen that
guy at the pic of his carrer and let me tel you I do not care who
he was but ..."
Well After all that gossip party and opinion theory taken as face
value, will (probably) emanate a man's life time devotion to an
art that is very ... that is very ...
> How would you like for someone
to say
>"Damn, that Spencer Doidge sure was no good, let's forget he
played
>guitar and write him out of history." Pretty funny ne?
>
>Let me borrow that crystal ball sometime, I've always wanted
one!
Oh! I just did read into that same cristal ball! thanks for
lending it to me!
Alain
Yeah! Posting rarely might not be a bad idea for me to!
>
>racerx(who rarely posts anymore, but is bored today)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>We are likely to be the last generation to remember him. As
Segovia
>>was the first famous classical guitarist in the US, so was the
>>Commodore among the first personal computers in the US. I think
that
>>his significance will wane with time, as has almost every
performer in
>>history. Better players are already among us.
>>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John Philip Dimick
>...[Segovia] serves as a good example of how not to act as a
>professional guitarist, especially how not to treat aspiring
>guitarists in master classes. That is his chief usefulness to us ...
>I mean, the guy was nothing but a musician after all--a wandering
>troubador--a supplier of an evening's amusement. Who the hell did
>he think he was? Ghandi?
Nothing but a musician?! Wow. This sounds like some social hierarchy of the
Middle Ages, the kind we see in the old woodcuts, in which The Musician is
usually ranked one off the bottom, just above The Fool.
A supplier of an evening's amusement?! Please. To many people still alive on
this planet, Segovia was the supplier of a lifetime's worth of inspiration, of
meaning. (Read what Segovia's work meant to Bream in the book "A Life on the
Road.")
Could Segovia have acheived the same results with better manners? Maybe --
though when we look at the behavior of some of history's most inspirational
prima donnas, you've got to wonder. Sometimes, these people just know what
they've got to have in order for their magic to work, and they insist on
having it. We put up with it because they can back it up. (When a Bobby
Fischer, Jimmy Connors, or Mohamed Ali starts "acting up" and behaving less
than modestly, we wait to see what they can do. If they back it up, they
become our heroes. When they can't back it up, we laugh them into oblivion.)
It's too bad Segovia wasn't an example of how to be a wonderful person and a
successful guitarist at the same time, and it's fine by me if people want to
put him down for his bad manners, but his name in history will be keeping very
good company with the likes of Paganini, Caruso, and Casals.
--
John Philip Dimick
j...@guitarist.com
www.guitarist.com