The art of playing guitar without playing guitar!
John Saldivar
is trying to find out how good Bruce Lee really is at fighting. The Swedish
guy is asking Bruce what his style is and Bruce replies "You can call it the
art of fighting without fighting" and then he tricks him into getting into a
small boat and never even fights the guy, instead he lets the ocean do his
dirty work for him:-) For some reason I always think about this when I read
posts about Luteman refusing to backup his statements with his playing. I
call it "The art of playing (teaching) classical guitar without playing
classical guitar" and it is an art that has been practiced and mastered by
people like Aaron Shearer, John Duarte, and Mantanya Ophee to name a few.
All of these guys have made very valuable contributions to the guitar (on
paper) and they deserve much credit but at the same time, they are not the
main source of inspiration for me and I would guess many others. Why is it
that more people feel more inspired by listening to an early John Williams
or Julian Bream recording than reading Shearers books. The answer is simple!
Because these guys play! They don't sit around looking for clever little
arguments to cover their tracks, they simply do what they do best. I t seems
like Luteman is getting the best of a lot of people without ever picking up
a guitar! For all I know he could be to the guitar what Bruce Lee was to
martial arts or, we may never know. The big difference was that Bruce Lee
kicked ass by the end of the movie! He did not go on preaching his
Philosophy or using clever little tricks to get everyone convinced that he
was good without ever performing. That would be about as boring as reading a
Shearer book and never playing guitar. The point is that I find it hard to
take anyone seriously unless I am moved by his or her performances. Luteman
himself would agree that you should not take everything he posts very
seriously. It seems that a lot of people have made this mistake.
Occasionally Luteman has something really profound to say and we should all
try to be a little more open minded about the whole thing. I wish there were
a bit more diplomacy in the group because I fell that it is important for
guitarists to exchange ideas with each other in friendlier manner. I hope I
have not offended anyone with this post, it's just something I had on my
mind.
Sincerely, John
Tom Poore
> Why is it that more people feel more inspired by listening to an
> early John Williams or Julian Bream recording than reading Shearer's
> books. The answer is simple! Because these guys play! They don't sit
> around looking for clever little arguments to cover their tracks, they
> simply do what they do best.
Intitially, inspiration comes from the players and the music itself.
This is as it should be. We all have our first encounter with the
classical guitar, and anyone who has devoted his or her life to the
guitar can recall the inspiration of hearing it played well for the
first time.
The question is, how do we turn inspiration into accomplishment?
Inspiration is fleeting, and mastering the guitar takes time. Those who
rely on others to inspire them seldom have the patience or dedication to
master the guitar. At some point, they have to supply their own
motivation--if they can't, they eventually give up.
Some years ago I read a passage in which the author distinguished
between those who want to learn something and those who want to already
know how to do something. Those who want to already know how to do
something seldom learn much--they want the accomplishment, but they
don't want to do the work it takes to become accomplished.
Great players get where they are because they're willing to pay the
price. An example: I was recently at the home of concert guitarist Jason
Vieaux. On his music stand was the score for a piece he was learning.
Next to the score was a sheet of paper. The entire page was filled with
gradually increasing metronome markings. I asked Vieaux what this was
for. He said that, when learning a new piece, he begins with a slow
metronome setting; a setting at which he can play the entire piece with
perfect accuracy. This setting was the first number on the page. Then,
only after he feels completely confident at this setting, he will cross
the tempo off the list and move to the next tempo, usually just a few
clicks faster. He'll then stay at this tempo until he can play with
perfect accuracy and utter confidence. At no time will he rush this
process--if he feels even slightly unsure or makes a slight error, he
stays at that tempo, or even goes back to the previous tempo.
Vieaux calls this process "running the tempos." He said that it's not
unusual to spend a month working through a piece in this way. During
this process, he refuses to play the piece at tempo. If someone asks him
to play it, he politely but firmly refuses. His attitude is that there's
no point in hacking through the piece--he'll perform it when he's
absolutely confident he can do so. Until then, it's a work in progress.
If one were to ask Vieaux if he finds this manner of practice to be
inspiring, he would answer that inspiration has little to do with it.
What motivates him is his desire to inspire others. This isn't to say
that he's never inspired. Like any sensitive listener, he's often
inspired by hearing great music played well. But he also recognizes that
the ability to inspire is built through patience, self-discipline, and
work. Although such work might appear humdrum compared to the goal,
Vieaux finds it very satisfying.
Learning to play is intrinsically less flashy than hearing a great
performance. Teachers and the books they write can never equal the
inspiration created by the playing of a great artist, nor should they be
expected to do so. Even a great player must eventually step out of the
spotlight and get down to the business of learning. Only those who can
invest the learning process with its own quiet satisfaction can hope to
inspire others.
Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
Lutemann
> He said that, when learning a new piece, he begins with a slow
>metronome setting; a setting at which he can play the entire piece with
>perfect accuracy. This setting was the first number on the page. Then,
>only after he feels completely confident at this setting, he will cross
>the tempo off the list and move to the next tempo, usually just a few
>clicks faster. He'll then stay at this tempo until he can play with
>perfect accuracy and utter confidence. At no time will he rush this
>process--if he feels even slightly unsure or makes a slight error, he
>stays at that tempo, or even goes back to the previous tempo.
This is rather inefficient. It would be better to isolate the hard parts and
work on these in the above manner described. Why practice what you can already
do?
Kent
Tom Poore
> ...when learning a new piece, he begins with a slow metro-
> nome setting; a setting at which he can play the entire piece
> with perfect accuracy. This setting was the first number on the
> page. Then, only after he feels completely confident at this
> setting, he will cross the tempo off the list and move to the
> next tempo, usually just a few clicks faster.
...and:
> He said that it's not unusual to spend a month working
> through a piece in this way.
Lutemann wrote:
> This is rather inefficient. It would be better to isolate the hard
> parts and work on these in the above manner described. Why
> practice what you can already do?
Actually, by the time he gets to the point I've described, he's already
isolated and worked through the difficult parts. (Of course, for a
virtuoso, there are fewer difficult parts than there are for us lesser
mortals.)
Also remember that we're talking about someone who has to go on stage or
in front of a microphone and nail his repertoire every time. Concert
musicians--especially young ones who are establishing themselves--don't
have the option of butchering a performance. They're expected to produce
high-quality playing on demand. If they fail to do so, they get fewer
bookings.
Considering this, a month on working up a new piece isn't unreasonable.
Some artists spend more time than this. The pianist Dinu Lipatti would
spend two to four years on a new concerto before he felt ready to
perform it.
Bob Ashley
: In article <35B7AC...@po.cwru.edu>, Tom Poore <t...@po.cwru.edu> writes:
: > He said that, when learning a new piece, he begins with a slow
: >metronome setting; a setting at which he can play the entire piece with
: >perfect accuracy. This setting was the first number on the page. Then,
: >only after he feels completely confident at this setting, he will cross
: >the tempo off the list and move to the next tempo, usually just a few
: >clicks faster. He'll then stay at this tempo until he can play with
: >perfect accuracy and utter confidence. At no time will he rush this
: >process--if he feels even slightly unsure or makes a slight error, he
: >stays at that tempo, or even goes back to the previous tempo.
: This is rather inefficient. It would be better to isolate the hard parts and
: work on these in the above manner described. Why practice what you can already
: do?
: Kent
Yes, it sounds a little overlaboured to me too. The last piece I really
truly, honestly "studied" I spent about 80% of my time on 5% of the work.
The result? It sounds like crap! Why? Endurance died. Inspiration
eventually expired.
Tom's theme was inspiration, not efficiency. I glad he raised this subject
because his exemplar, however we might scrupulously berate his
inefficiencies, illustrates that madness in devotion can accomplish more
than meticulousness of method. In all the arts, this is usually the case;
the meticulous ones tend to drift into accountancy! (only joking).
Now, I don't disagree with Kent's idea, at least as it applies to the rest
of us slugs with frantic schedules, middling talent, and shortage of
enduring inspiration. I don't exclude myself from this gang. It would make
little sense for a teacher to try to "coach" inspiration--I don't think
those feelings are coachable. From this vantage one can find Tom's story
romantic, almost melodramatic. I like that.
Bob Ashley
John Saldivar
agree somewhat. For example, if you are practicing a piece like the Bach
Chaconne which is anywhere from 12 to 15 minutes long depending on the mood,
and you practice it at half tempo correctly, you will end up playing it
through once in about 24-30 minutes! That's valuable time that could have
been spent working on some of the more difficult parts of the piece.
Practice time is scarce! get all you can and use it wisely.
Lutemann wrote in message
<199807232331...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Lutemann
>Also remember that we're talking about someone who has to go on stage or
>in front of a microphone and nail his repertoire every time. Concert
>musicians--especially young ones who are establishing themselves--don't
>have the option of butchering a performance. They're expected to produce
>high-quality playing on demand. If they fail to do so, they get fewer
>bookings.
>
>
It still has the ring of inefficiency. Generally, players gain perfection
through long hours of careful, intelligent practicing, not playing the entire
piece through at one tempo, then another. However no one can argue with
success.
Kent
hogr...@my-dejanews.com
> metronome setting; a setting at which he can play the entire piece with
> perfect accuracy. This setting was the first number on the page. Then,
> only after he feels completely confident at this setting, he will cross
> the tempo off the list and move to the next tempo, usually just a few
> clicks faster. He'll then stay at this tempo until he can play with
> perfect accuracy and utter confidence. At no time will he rush this
> process--if he feels even slightly unsure or makes a slight error, he
> stays at that tempo, or even goes back to the previous tempo.
>
> unusual to spend a month working through a piece in this way. During
> this process, he refuses to play the piece at tempo. If someone asks him
> to play it, he politely but firmly refuses. His attitude is that there's
> no point in hacking through the piece--he'll perform it when he's
> absolutely confident he can do so. Until then, it's a work in progress.
>
> If one were to ask Vieaux if he finds this manner of practice to be
> inspiring, he would answer that inspiration has little to do with it.
> What motivates him is his desire to inspire others. This isn't to say
> that he's never inspired. Like any sensitive listener, he's often
> inspired by hearing great music played well. But he also recognizes that
> the ability to inspire is built through patience, self-discipline, and
> work. Although such work might appear humdrum compared to the goal,
> Vieaux finds it very satisfying.
>
> Learning to play is intrinsically less flashy than hearing a great
> performance. Teachers and the books they write can never equal the
> inspiration created by the playing of a great artist, nor should they be
> expected to do so. Even a great player must eventually step out of the
> spotlight and get down to the business of learning. Only those who can
> invest the learning process with its own quiet satisfaction can hope to
> inspire others.
>
> Cleveland Heights, OH
> USA
>
Great post, it has inspired me to slow down on some of the scores I'm working
on and to make greater use of the metronome. I have one measure in a piece
I'm working on that always gives me trouble. I will find out what tempo I can
play it at and start there. doug
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jim String
>In the case of sex I would have to disagree but for the guitar I have to
>agree somewhat. For example, if you are practicing a piece like the Bach
>Chaconne which is anywhere from 12 to 15 minutes long depending on the mood,
>and you practice it at half tempo correctly, you will end up playing it
>through once in about 24-30 minutes! That's valuable time that could have
>been spent working on some of the more difficult parts of the piece.
>Practice time is scarce! get all you can and use it wisely.
Someone mentioned dividing the Chaconne up into sections. I'm fairly
aware of each different variation but would be hard pressed to to
accurately identify the beginning and ending measure of each and every
variation. Someone also mention dividing into 64, what's that all
about?
Best,
Jim
Charlie
> It still has the ring of inefficiency. Generally, players gain perfection
> through long hours of careful, intelligent practicing, not playing the entire
> piece through at one tempo, then another. However no one can argue with
> success.
>
> Kent
Kent,
I tend to agree with you. In my own practice technique, I use the
difficult measure or two as a technical study. I play it over and over
at a a very slow tempo 'til I get it right. I slowly bring it up to
tempo then no longer have a problem executing it.
Charlie
Tom Poore
guitarist learned new pieces. Some responded that the approach I
described was inefficient and excessive. Perhaps it is, for those who
pursue the guitar as a hobby. But consider yourself in the shoes of an
up and coming concert artist:
You walk on stage at Alice Tully Hall in New York. There's a
hushed buzz of anticipation from the audience as you settle
into playing position.
In the first row sits a critic from the New York Times. This
is unusual, since a guitar recital by a player who's not an
established name is normally ignored by the Times. But this
reviewer has heard you're a cut above the rest. Intrigued,
he's decided to hear you firsthand and decide whether you're
ready to take your place as a major artist.
Beside him is the organizer of the concert series for which
you're about to perform. Normally, she prefers to book only
well-established artists. After three years of persistent lob-
bying, however, your agency finally convinced her that you're
a major artist in the making. The series organizer is pleased
so far--you've attracted a full house. But she's still skeptical.
How well will you play when the pressure's on?
Next to her sits your agent. She normally can't attend your
recitals, but this one is especially important, and it's close
enough to her home office that she's able to attend. The agency
for which she works thinks highly of you, and it sees this recital
as an opportunity to establish you in one of the most knowledge-
able and fiercely competitive musical venues in the world. For
your agent, this recital is a personal vindication--it was she
who convinced her agency to take you on as a client.
Also in the audience is a member of the governing board of a
major metropolitan orchestra. Your agency has patiently
worked its contacts with many orchestras, trying to interest
them in booking you for concerto performances. This governing
board member has heard your name before. In New York on
business, he's decided to give up his one free evening and
attend your recital.
Scattered throughout the audience are guitar students from
Juilliard, Mannes, and the Manhattan School of Music. A group
of students from Eastman have made the long drive from up-
state to hear you. Some of the guitarists hold scores in their
laps, so they can follow the music as you play.
The buzz from the audience recedes as you finish tuning. You
close your eyes and visualize the beginning of your first pro-
grammed piece: the Prelude from the 4th Lute Suite. By now,
the audience is utterly silent. You raise your hands to the gui-
tar and begin to play.
Under these circumstances, how well-prepared and confident do you want
to be?
hogr...@my-dejanews.com
at this point I would be rushing back to the dressing room to change my pants.
Lutemann
>Under these circumstances, how well-prepared and confident do you want
>to be?
>
>
Do you mean before or after I piss in my pants.
Kent
Tim Berens
>Last week I made a post in which I described how a particular concert
>guitarist learned new pieces. Some responded that the approach I
>described was inefficient and excessive. Perhaps it is, for those who
>pursue the guitar as a hobby. But consider yourself in the shoes of an
>up and coming concert artist:
>
frightening and tense situation clipped for brevity's sake
>
>Tom Poore
>Cleveland Heights, OH
>USA
Tom:
I enjoyed your post last week about Jason Vieaux's practice technique
of running the tempos. It made me smile. That's exactly what I do
for learning pieces.
I'm not a solo concert classical guitarist, but I play professionally
under very high pressure situations. In a high pressure time, it is
amazing what sort of thoughts wander through your mind. You never
know when some strange distracting thought will take a stroll through
your consciousness. It's just as likely to happen during a "simple"
passage as during a difficult one. You must be able to "play through"
these distractions.
For this reason, one aspect of preparing a piece for performance is
working on the continuity of the piece . You must be able to move
forward, to keep playing no matter what, from any point in the piece.
If a door slams, or someone makes a loud noise, or (as happened to me
once) someone sits in the front row and nervously twitches their foot,
you have to keep playing. That set of instructions your brain is
sending out to your hands to produce music must continue to flow
uninterrupted.
The way I achieve this is to do it. I play the piece uninterrupted
over and over and over. Running the tempos is a big part of that
learning process for me. I set the metronome on about half speed,
play the piece, click it up one notch and play, then another, another,
etc. until I'm at full speed. The next day I do it all again. This,
of course, takes place after I've worked through the difficult
technical passages and I'm working on the continuity (some might call
it memorization) of the piece.
By running the tempos, I'm training my brain to send out the
instructions in a steady flow. This too must be practiced slowly and
then gradually up to tempo, just as difficult technical passages must
be practiced slowly then gradually up to tempo.
Tim Berens
Tom Poore
> I'm not a solo concert classical guitarist, but I play profession-
> ally under very high pressure situations. In a high pressure
> time, it is amazing what sort of thoughts wander through
> your mind. You never know when some strange distracting
> thought will take a stroll through your consciousness.
When I began learning to perform during my undergraduate years, I would
actually have two trains of thought--one positive, and one
negative--going at once when performing. In the positive train, I would
concentrate on the next note, the next shift, the next left-hand finger
formation--it was an entirely pragmatic and non-stressful thought
process. In the negative train, I was mentally running in circles and
screaming like a chicken. The trick was to ignore the screaming chicken
and concentrate on the positive thought process.
> For this reason, one aspect of preparing a piece for perfor-
> mance is working on the continuity of the piece. You must
> be able to move forward, to keep playing no matter what,
> from any point in the piece. That set of instructions your
> brain is sending out to your hands to produce music must
> continue to flow uninterrupted.
> By running the tempos, I'm training my brain to send out
> the instructions in a steady flow. This too must be practiced
> slowly and then gradually up to tempo, just as difficult
> technical passages must be practiced slowly then gradually
> up to tempo.
This makes so much sense that one would think everyone would work in a
similar way. But human nature being what it is, we're always looking for
a shortcut.
Some years ago, a very good player told me of an encounter he had with a
student of modest ability. The student had asked the guitarist how he
got to be so good.
"I could tell that he was looking for an easy answer," said the
guitarist. "It was as if he thought I could tell him a secret that would
instantly turn him into a good player."
We tend to see great players as an alchemic miracle, and often overlook
more prosaic reasons why they're better than the rest of us:
• they practice more
• they practice consistently
• they practice smarter
• they refuse to settle for mediocrity
I recall one poster who likened such attributes to madness. But if you
think about it, it's a perfectly sensible way to approach music. Imagine
a virtuoso looking at mediocre players who year after year display the
same fundamental flaws. The virtuoso must wonder why these players
continue to wallow in mediocrity rather than buckle down and resolve
their flaws once and for all.
Jim String
>
>I recall one poster who likened such attributes to madness. But if you
>think about it, it's a perfectly sensible way to approach music. Imagine
The sort of practice necessary to achieve virtuosic performance of
even a relatively simple piece does resemble various forms of
obsessive/compulsive and manic behaviour, not to mention the stubborn
and illogical refusal to acknowledge the near impossibility of a
task. Such behavior would be clearly indicative of serious mental
impairment if it were not in pursuit of art. *cackle*
>a virtuoso looking at mediocre players who year after year display the
>same fundamental flaws. The virtuoso must wonder why these players
>continue to wallow in mediocrity rather than buckle down and resolve
>their flaws once and for all.
Perhaps the virtuoso forgot the herculean effort it took him to
pass such obstacles himself? Perhaps the virtuoso forgets that not
everyone has access to the finest teachers and that not everyone
has the financial means to allow hours of daily practice. I'd be
quite interested in the support structure and finances of today's
top players, both at the present and during their formative years.
I suspect that things have not changed that much in the last 300
years, music is still the privilege of the rich and leisure classes.
Best,
Jim
Lutemann
(Jim String) writes:
>Perhaps the virtuoso forgot the herculean effort it took him to
>pass such obstacles himself? Perhaps the virtuoso forgets that not
>everyone has access to the finest teachers and that not everyone
>has the financial means to allow hours of daily practice. I'd be
>quite interested in the support structure and finances of today's
>top players, both at the present and during their formative years.
>I suspect that things have not changed that much in the last 300
>years, music is still the privilege of the rich and leisure classes.
Don't forget talent. I've known some very fine players who didn't practice very
much.
Kent
JonLor Pro
>27 Jul 1998 23:22:24 GMT
>The truth is ... that you never know who may >be listening when you are just
practicing in >the park :)
This brings to mind an amusing recollection- many years ago my wife and I
were performing outside at Colombus Circle in New York- down the sidewalk came
Julian Bream. I could have been playing the "Prelude, Fugue, and Allegro", or
Orbons "Preludio y Danza" or a Dowland Fantasy. We could have been doing
Schubert, de Falla, or Britten. What were we doing? - "Danny Boy". So it
goes....
A few years later I _ was_ doing the PFA in the Boston subways when David
Leisner showed up and gave me a dollar. So it goes....
JonLorPro@aol
Bob Ashley
: We tend to see great players as an alchemic miracle, and often overlook
: more prosaic reasons why they're better than the rest of us:
: • they practice more
: • they practice consistently
: • they practice smarter
: • they refuse to settle for mediocrity
: I recall one poster who likened such attributes to madness. But if you
: think about it, it's a perfectly sensible way to approach music. Imagine
: a virtuoso looking at mediocre players who year after year display the
: same fundamental flaws. The virtuoso must wonder why these players
: continue to wallow in mediocrity rather than buckle down and resolve
: their flaws once and for all.
: Tom Poore
Hey Tom, that was me, the one who "likened such attributes to madness".
Now the way you've cast these terms, it well appears that only a madman
would rail against them. Being common-sense and all.
Your Four-Step-Virtuosity-Program (sorry, couldn't resist!) lays emphasis
on the pragmatics of high-level playing, but I think it runs away more
quickly than it should from the idea of "alchemic miracle". When we add
the virtues of the four steps somehow I can't make them equal "virtuoso".
Couched in logic's terms (and you should revel in my dependency on same),
we might say that the four steps are necessary conditions, but they are
not sufficient conditions of virtuosity. A mysterious 'x' factor presents
itself. Have I got myself into some trouble here?
There is a certain genius in your figure of "alchemic miracle" which
I think short-circuits your emphasis on the four steps. I think you might
agree that the four steps aren't enough, but when you figure in your
"alchemic miracle factor", presto--John Williams. Were it not for the
"alchemic miracles", I ask, "Whither art?"
Forgive me for shunting the topic from the pragmatics of practice, to the
madness of alchemic genius. I grant that in so doing I artificially alter
the hue of terms you are using. But even prior to my shunt, might we not
frame the Four-Steps as a universal salvation device? Apply the
Four-Steps to any human endeavour--business, sports, war, and so on...ad
lib...and voila! Success! In other words, we find ourselves in the realm
of myth. Myth, not in the sense of a fiction, but in the sense of
instructive narrative, suitable to live by. As such, my ascribing the
Four-Steps a mythic dimension is not meant as a derision at all, but
rather an acknowledgment of a sort of utility everyone can understand. And
isn't this your emphasis in part, that strong CG-playing is within reach
to many of us? You could not communicate this appeal without drawing on
the identity of a common mythology. It just happens to be Puritan.
It also happens that I can't argue contra the Four-Steps, for the reason
that whether I like it or not, the Puritan salvation myth informs my life
too. For a moment, let us consider ourselves Zen Buddhist-Guitarists
(tremendous poetic potential in rhyme, eh?), how, then, might our
Four-Steps read? (As a matter of fact, isn't there some Buddhist tenet
that indeed treats of a four-way path to enlightenment?). Shunt. Shunt.
I wonder, though, where your thinking leans on the 'x' factor of
virtuosity, that element which is not prosaic. I'd like it if you
speculated the implications of your term "alchemic miracle". What I ask I
realize leads from one informing myth directly to another. I ask because
I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your positions on the theme of inspiration
and I reckon you've got some equally stimulating ideas about miracles too.
Regards,
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
: >a virtuoso looking at mediocre players who year after year display the
: >same fundamental flaws. The virtuoso must wonder why these players
: >continue to wallow in mediocrity rather than buckle down and resolve
: >their flaws once and for all.
Jim String wrote:
: Perhaps the virtuoso forgot the herculean effort it took him to
: pass such obstacles himself? Perhaps the virtuoso forgets that not
: everyone has access to the finest teachers and that not everyone
: has the financial means to allow hours of daily practice. I'd be
: quite interested in the support structure and finances of today's
: top players, both at the present and during their formative years.
: I suspect that things have not changed that much in the last 300
: years, music is still the privilege of the rich and leisure classes.
:
Jim, you raise an important point about the interrelationship of "high"
art and "upper" class privilege. The two are mutually implicated at every
turn. And the privilgentsia always discount their privileges as having
anything to do with their prowess; instead they profess a "natural"
alliance between their ability and their position as rulers.
Now how many seconds will it be before someone comes up with a strong
counterexample.
1...2....3...
Bob Ashley
Jim String
Well, Kent came back quickly with the talent issue and I've been thinking
about that a lot lately even though I didn't have any immediate reply
for him. Kent observed that some very talented players don't seem to
practice too much. I'll observe that some students in other disciplines
don't seem to study too much either. I never have, I read well and quickly,
have good study habits and tend to remember things. Perhaps this is talent?
Hmm. This really raises some questions in my mind and some of it seems
to come right back to the self-teaching thing. I think that past a certain
point guitar technique becomes somewhat self-evident, hence the discussion
about the value of practicing scales. Sure, I spent a lot of time practicing
scales but I don't anymore because it seems unnecessary. The main thing
that requires large quantities of my time these days is memorization and
that's strictly a function of the quantity of music I'm trying to assimilate.
I'm not sure that I actually "practice" that much anymore, at least in
terms of technique. I did some tremolo work a few weeks ago, but it seems
to me that I mainly "study" and "memorize" these days rather than practice
technique.
What is talent really? Is it an innate ability imbued by God? Or is it
evidence of persistence and individual effort an will? Granted, some have
natural advantages and disadvantages, strength, nail quality and shape,
whatever, but are these sort of things really all that significant in the
face of someone's will to do it? Reminds me of the arguments about perfect
pitch, some will claim it's an innate ability, others that it is learned,
some claim it's an advantage, others say it's really a disadvantage and
no one can really say what it is in the first place.
Once the mechanics of guitar technique are understood and mastered the
issue becomes mainly a question of quantity, i.e. repertoire. I don't
think anyone goes around playing the same program for their entire
career so what, in practical terms and in terms of a support structure,
is required to put together a new program and get it to the point of
being performed well in concert?
I'm quite certain that if someone handed me a large wad of cash so that
my financial concerns disappeared for a few years I'd be quite the player.
I've got good tone and technique and IMHO anyway, good sense of musical
phrase. I don't know how much of this I'd characterize as "talent", seems
to me it's a function of my own effort and love of the instrument but I
know I'd be a lot further along with a healthy helping of cash. Ah well,
at least I'm happy.
This discussion reminds me why I am never particularly impressed by
child "prodigies." I remember a thread here a few months ago about this
and I just can't get excited about the amazing "talent" of some kid
who has had all of the advantages. Some people do and I mostly regard
them as rather shallow. Maybe they have too much money?
Best,
Jim
Tom Poore
> Your Four-Step-Virtuosity-Program (sorry, couldn't resist!) lays
> emphasis on the pragmatics of high-level playing, but I think it
> runs away more quickly than it should from the idea of "alchemic
> miracle". When we add the virtues of the four steps somehow I
> can't make them equal "virtuoso". Couched in logic's terms (and
> you should revel in my dependency on same), we might say that
> the four steps are necessary conditions, but they are not sufficient
> conditions of virtuosity. A mysterious 'x' factor presents itself. Have
> I got myself into some trouble here?
> There is a certain genius in your figure of "alchemic miracle"
> which I think short-circuits your emphasis on the four steps. I
> think you might agree that the four steps aren't enough, but when
> you figure in your "alchemic miracle factor", presto--John Williams.
> Were it not for the "alchemic miracles", I ask, "Whither art?"
Virtuosity is obviously a more elusive goal than any "Four Step Program"
can address adequately. The path to virtuosity is one of increasing
subtlety and sophistication. Put another way, if it were easy to become
a virtuoso, then anyone who wanted to be a virtuoso would be one.
What concerns me, however, is that the idea of talent often
short-circuits any further discussion of how virtuosity is achieved. For
example, consider the following statement: "John Williams is a virtuoso
because he's talented." What does this tell us? Nothing. Indeed, it has
the ring of a tautology. Further, it suggests that virtuosity is a
mystery--one we shouldn't try to understand. It also suggests that the
potential for virtuosity is something you either have or you don't.
This is a hopeless and unproductive way of looking at virtuosity. A more
positive approach is to define what talent actually is. Can we
systematically identify factors that, when brought together, define
talent? I believe we can. I don't underestimate the difficulty of doing
so, nor do I believe we can pinpoint every element of talent. But
there's much we can understand, and we should approach virtuosity with a
clear-eyed passion to discover its inner workings.
Parenthetically, I have a particular caveat to the idea of talent.
Students should never focus on how talented they are or aren't. Please
don't misunderstand--I'm not saying that talent doesn't exist. What I'm
saying is that, for anyone who's learning to play the guitar, talent (or
its absence) isn't a productive focus:
¥ For those who believe they have talent, it can become an
excuse to cut corners. Talented students often find themselves
outstripping their less talented peers. This can lull them into
believing they don't need to work as carefully or intelligently
as other players. Talented students who succumb to this error
seldom become great players. Having failed to cultivate an
honest and uncompromising sense of craftsmanship, they even-
tually reach a point beyond which they can't progress.
¥ For those who believe they lack talent, it can become an excuse
for accepting mediocrity.
Talent is something we can determine only in retrospect. Thus, students
who dwell on how much talent they have are putting the cart before the
horse. It's as though they're deciding how far they'll get before
they've even started. Instead, why not aim high and see how far you get?
If you fall short of your high goals, it will be an honest shortfall,
and not a result of falsely low expectations.
Bob Ashley
Distribution:
Jim String (pla...@not.replyable.com) wrote:
<major snippage>
: scales but I don't anymore because it seems unnecessary. The main thing
: that requires large quantities of my time these days is memorization and
: that's strictly a function of the quantity of music I'm trying to assimilate.
: I'm not sure that I actually "practice" that much anymore, at least in
: terms of technique. I did some tremolo work a few weeks ago, but it seems
: to me that I mainly "study" and "memorize" these days rather than practice
: technique.
Memorization is sits on the summit of my list of practical concerns. This
work for me seems harder than any CG-technique to master. With the myriad
of details one must attempt to assimilate --not just notes-- the work is
like writing a short story then writing it again...exactly as the 1st
time, from memory.
Perhaps the issue of scales is more important to those whose concerns are
primarily to advance the technique of students with little to middling
experience. Sure, I'd like to play better myself, but at my level 8-9
Conservatory, I can already handle a pretty large selection of music. We
reach what economists refer to as a 'level of marginal returns' wherein
beyond a certain efficiency, inputs invested do not result is proportional
output rewards. Not being all that talented, I might have to invest 2
hours a day on pure CG-weight-lifting type studies just barely hang onto a
higher level by my fingernails. I've risen to my level of incompetence and
as such I have a civil servant's brand of apathy toward doing a better
job. But of those piece I can play not too badly, I wished I had them all
inscribed in my memory; I suspect, though, that the stone is too tough to
get the chisel into.
In the constellation of wonders I have for concert musicians,
memorization, that is, having all that music in one's head, under strict
"librarianistic" control, is one of the brightest stars. I suspect, also,
that acquiring this head-with-a-hard-drive ability is every bit as
difficult as any of those CG techniques we natter about.
: What is talent really? Is it an innate ability imbued by God? Or is it
: evidence of persistence and individual effort an will? Granted, some have
: natural advantages and disadvantages, strength, nail quality and shape,
: whatever, but are these sort of things really all that significant in the
: face of someone's will to do it? Reminds me of the arguments about perfect
<snippage>
Talent? I think your intuitive glance toward God is as good a start on
this mystery as any. Tom Poore devised the brilliant metaphor "alchemic
miracle", but then to my surprise, he orphaned it only to advertise a
workshop answer, something I've tagged "The-Four-Step-Virtuoso-Program"
(in jest, of course).
: Once the mechanics of guitar technique are understood and
mastered the
: issue becomes mainly a question of quantity, i.e. repertoire. I don't
: think anyone goes around playing the same program for their entire
: career so what, in practical terms and in terms of a support structure,
: is required to put together a new program and get it to the point of
: being performed well in concert?
Yes, once mastered, maintenance of technique should take over from the
building of technique. Your observation begs that we treat of the advanced
student/professional quite differently than the beginning/intermediate
student and this makes much sense. What buffoons we'd be if we suggested
to Picasso, 50 years into his career that he should continue to "figure
studies" and "perspective practice".
Let me borrow your obversation, walk across the bridge, and try it on the
visual arts:"Once the mechanics of drawing/painting/sculpting are
understood and mastered, the issue becomes mainly a question of quantity,
ie.repetoire/[portfolio]. The portability of your insight, to my way of
thinking, gives your claim cogency.
: I'm quite certain that if someone handed me a large wad of cash so that
: my financial concerns disappeared for a few years I'd be quite the player.
: I've got good tone and technique and IMHO anyway, good sense of musical
: phrase. I don't know how much of this I'd characterize as "talent", seems
: to me it's a function of my own effort and love of the instrument but I
: know I'd be a lot further along with a healthy helping of cash. Ah well,
: at least I'm happy.
: This discussion reminds me why I am never particularly impressed by
: child "prodigies." I remember a thread here a few months ago about this
: and I just can't get excited about the amazing "talent" of some kid
: who has had all of the advantages. Some people do and I mostly regard
: them as rather shallow. Maybe they have too much money?
My opinion of child prodigies sees them as symptoms of deep-cut social
psychosis which describes an obsessive-competitive compulsion to create
"young gods". I tend more to look at the parents and coaches, and there,
we will find the source of yearning-for-immortality squarely
projected onto little kids. There is as much an attitude of "look what
I've made of this kid! (either through biological or pedagogical talents)
as there is, "Admire, no worship, my little musical child- emperor". Our
sick obsession of lusting after side-show freaks has left the circus tents
and rematerialized on the prodigal stage. To me, the sight/sound of the
child master talent raises pity and fear--the classic cathartic response
to tragedy.
Regards
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
<snippage>
: What concerns me, however, is that the idea of talent often
: short-circuits any further discussion of how virtuosity is achieved. For
: example, consider the following statement: "John Williams is a virtuoso
: because he's talented." What does this tell us? Nothing. Indeed, it has
: the ring of a tautology. Further, it suggests that virtuosity is a
: mystery--one we shouldn't try to understand. It also suggests that the
: potential for virtuosity is something you either have or you don't.
Yes, Tom, your concern that we may be too easily entranced by the
brilliance of talent to notice the hard work is a good point. Starstruck
is not a nuanced state of mind, to be sure. But, the "alchemic miracle",
to borrow your figure, might well be seen as the fusion of your
"Four-Steps" with talent. If we are careful not to exclude either factor
in our equation-building for virtuosity, maybe we can move further along
in our analysis.
: This is a hopeless and unproductive way of looking at virtuosity. A more
: positive approach is to define what talent actually is. Can we
: systematically identify factors that, when brought together, define
: talent? I believe we can. I don't underestimate the difficulty of doing
: so, nor do I believe we can pinpoint every element of talent. But
: there's much we can understand, and we should approach virtuosity with a
: clear-eyed passion to discover its inner workings.
No matter the definition, though, that definition becomes a color-filter,
for the mere fact of its being interpretative. That which is illuminated
by one definition is rendered murky by the next. Either way, you post
sounds as if you're inclined slightly towards a psychological/cognitive
sort of answer, something that might give evidence of methodological
rigour. I'm all for that. The results would make for an interesting read.
regards,
Bob Ashley
Tim Berens
ability = talent x practice
Tim
Lutemann
>Parenthetically, I have a particular caveat to the idea of talent.
>Students should never focus on how talented they are or aren't. Please
>don't misunderstand--I'm not saying that talent doesn't exist. What I'm
>saying is that, for anyone who's learning to play the guitar, talent (or
>its absence) isn't a productive focus:
>
>
Very good. There are all levels of talent. The concept of the virtuoso has
been over-emphasized because of the mass market. Today, even some great
players fail to make a living playing. One should focus on their own aims and
goals and forget about the virtuoso B.S. ( I know this isn't exactly your
point, but I'm adding to it)
Kent
Lutemann
writes:
>Memorization is sits on the summit of my list of practical concerns. This
>work for me seems harder than any CG-technique to master. With the myriad
>of details one must attempt to assimilate --not just notes-- the work is
>like writing a short story then writing it again...exactly as the 1st
>time, from memory.
There are visualization techniques that anyone can master. You can actually
shove things into your memory at a pretty good rate. What I like about it is
that it is dependable and you know if you know it. Here's a short essay I
wrote about playing without errors. The last paragraph describes how you can
have a visual experience.
Here's how you practice without errors:
1) take the first few measures of the piece you are working on.
2) Make sure you can count the rhythm. If there are problems, clap or
vocalize the rhythm until it is completely understood.
3) visualize yourself playing the the left hand, and, where appropriate, the
right hand for these few measures.
4) When you are sure of where everything goes, play those few measures very
slowly with intense concentration without stopping.
5) If you made an error(s) it is not the end of the world. Analyze why you
made the mistake(s). Was it a confusion error , a loss of concentration,
perhaps you took to big a chunk? Try again.
6) when you can play it several time through with no errors, take the next
few measures and repeat the process. Eventually, you connect the sections
together.
Practice is like a meditation. You will never get to point where you make no
errors, but you work toward that point, always asking yourself, "Am I making
fewer errors as I practice?" In a sense, you are not just practicing a
piece, you are practicing practicing a piece.
Learning the discipline of visualization is not easy. Try this for an
exercise. Play an Eb major scale in the first position without a guitar in
your hand. Force yourself to see the left hand play the notes by saying the
scale out loud, first the letter name and then the finger/fret number. Like
this: Eb one, F three, G oh, Ab one, Bb three, etc. Play the scale in your
head from Eb up to Ab on the first string and then all the way down to F on
the sixth string and then back up to Eb,covering the whole first (or open )
position. When you can say the scale without a hesitation, play it slowly
with no errors. This is the visualization experience.
Kent Murdick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for a free catalog...
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html
NEW MUSIC! "Four More Latin American Pieces"
Free guitar music:
http://olympus.asms.state.k12.al.us/faculty/murdick/music.html
Jim String
talent = ability / practice ?
Best,
Jim
Bob Ashley
: In article <6pq2gg$gb6$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, ax...@chebucto.ns.ca (Bob Ashley)
: writes:
: >Memorization is sits on the summit of my list of practical concerns. This
: >work for me seems harder than any CG-technique to master. With the myriad
: >of details one must attempt to assimilate --not just notes-- the work is
: >like writing a short story then writing it again...exactly as the 1st
: >time, from memory.
Thanks for the piece on memorization. I printed it and stuck inside my new
copy of "Humping Pylons". Although I jest about Tennant's book, my motive
for printing your article is to have it where, ironically enough, I won't
forget it. Sheeesh.
<snippage>
: Practice is like a meditation. You will never get to point where you make no
: errors, but you work toward that point, always asking yourself, "Am I making
: fewer errors as I practice?" In a sense, you are not just practicing a
: piece, you are practicing practicing a piece.
"Practice is like a meditation." How many lifetimes does it take the
Buddhist monk to achieve enlightenment? The inner game of practice: "you
are practicing practicing". Why is my mind full of images from "Karate
Kid"? "Paint fence, Daniel-sun, up, down, up, down."
Seriously, I confess as I sigh that there is probably no better way (tao?)
to achieving solid grasp of a piece than that what you show.
<snip>
: Learning the discipline of visualization is not easy.
<snip>
Yes, and I might, with some serious casuistic stretching go as far as
saying there's nothing harder. And this is why, equipped with a
sense-studded technique or not, memorization tops my CG concerns.
<previous snipped attaches to following snippet>
: Try this for an
: exercise. Play an Eb major scale in the first position without a guitar in
: your hand. Force yourself to see the left hand play the notes by saying the
: scale out loud, first the letter name and then the finger/fret number. Like
: this: Eb one, F three, G oh, Ab one, Bb three, etc. Play the scale in your
: head from Eb up to Ab on the first string and then all the way down to F on
: the sixth string and then back up to Eb,covering the whole first (or open )
: position. When you can say the scale without a hesitation, play it slowly
: with no errors. This is the visualization experience.
: Kent Murdick
: -----------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, Eb one, uh...okay..wait a minute, yes...no, oh okay, Fthree, there!
Whoops...I think I got it, no damn! but yes, G oh, Oh Canada..no Ab YES!
but what's next..mmmmm right! Ab.
Yes, I see what you mean. I guess I'm just the Forrest Gump of classical
guitar.
Let's see...after Ab..MAMA!
Unforgettably,
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
: ability = talent x practice
A drink for our man here of few, but powerful words!
Some mathematical juggling:
if your formulaic imperative is true, then..
talent = ability / practice
and similarly
practice = ability / talent
Tim, why did you choose multiplication over addition?
ability = talent "+" practice
Then talent = ability - practice. Hey, sounds not half bad, eh?
and similarly
practice = ability - talent. We might be on to something here! But I'm
not sure what.
Are you?
Enjoying your drink, Tim?
Bob Ashley
Tim Berens
>Tim Berens (ti...@erinet.com) wrote:
>
>: ability = talent x practice
>
>A drink for our man here of few, but powerful words!
>
>Tim, why did you choose multiplication over addition?
>
>ability = talent "+" practice
>
>Then talent = ability - practice. Hey, sounds not half bad, eh?
>
>and similarly
>
>practice = ability - talent. We might be on to something here! But I'm
>not sure what.
>
>Are you?
>
Ever noticed that analogies work so much better in the imprecise world
of language than in the ever so precise world of mathematics?
Actually neither multiplication nor addition really describes the
relationship between practice, talent and ability, because practicing
does not increase ability geometrically. Ability increases
exponentially as you practice.
So, I guess we need some fancier sort of equation to really explain
it. But by the time you develop the fancy equation, the beauty of a
simple analogy is lost.
I guess my point is that while our talent is fixed at birth, our
ability can grow daily by simply working on developing the talent we
have.
Man - look at all this pontification. I should stick with the few
powerful word thing.
Tim Berens
Lutemann
writes:
>Yes, and I might, with some serious casuistic stretching go as far as
>saying there's nothing harder. And this is why, equipped with a
>sense-studded technique or not, memorization tops my CG concerns.
There are lots of harder things to do. I've never had a student who couldn't
learn to visualize pieces. Some didn't continue doing it, but all learned.
You just need good instruction.
Kent
williams
I have a certain amount of talent. When I was young I thought somehow that made
me special. I soon realized that many if not all musicians are talented. Therefore I
was no longer special. As I grew in my abilities I thought listeners would be
impressed with my new found "hot licks." Nothing could be farther from the truth. The
only thing the average listener cares about is being entertained. If they don't enjoy
what is being presented, all the hot licks you have won't persuade them that you are
special. I have discovered through the years that most musicians, (especially guitar
players), are more interested in impression the half dozen other musicians that are
listening rather than the thousand non-musicians that are buying the tickets.
There own pride prevents them from being successful. If they would concentrate on
the beauty of the performance rather than the image of mastery they would discover a
whole new world of appreciation out there.
Dave.
On 7/30/98 11:01AM, in message
<199807301801...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Lutemann
Bob Ashley
: In article <6pqg2s$i1q$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, ax...@chebucto.ns.ca (Bob Ashley)
: writes:
: Kent
Well, maybe emptying the cat's litter box might be harder than
"visualization", but I can't think of much else. Doubtless if your
students can pick up the technique, I should be able to as well. In fact,
I may well be doing it when I successfully memorize a piece.
The true test, though, is the measure of the depth and scope of one's
"by-heart" repetoire. I'd be nothing less than shocked to hear that on
average, those of your students trained to visualize could reel off
more than a few minutes of well-memorized music. After all, the method
you prescribe is scrupulously meticulous and anything demanding this sort
analytic concentration is going to witness widespread attrition among its
adherents. Of 100 new karate students how many achieve the higher belts?
Doesn't this discipline require the same "visualization" skills? I dropped
out at yellow; I'm not the least ashamed of being average in this since
this is what most of us are.
The sentence "Some didn't continue doing it" is not to be passed over
lightly. 150 million Americans "didn't continue" their diet, yoga class,
jogging, piano lessons, tai chi, and so on ad infinitum... If the
technique is as efficacious a remedy as we would hope,
"few" would dare abandon it. And if the technique itself it not so
hard, then perhaps what is so hard is mustering the devotion to do it day
after day after.... I'm inclined to think that precious few of us possess
that kind hot focus day in day out. Ironically enough, its this very
attempt to focus razor-sharp images that visualization hopes to instill.
A final note. I think your little essay is clear enough to be that "good
instruction" you speak of. As well, I can find corrobating opinions from
my religious texts.
Tell you what. When I get those tangos in the mail from you, I'll start
afresh with "visualization" right from the start. I'm sure it'll work, but
when it comes to long-term resolve...And what piece will I forget as I
remember this new one?
Regards,
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
: Ever noticed that analogies work so much better in the imprecise world
: of language than in the ever so precise world of mathematics?
That's because the language of math has no referential work to do; it's
all abstract. In the world of breakfasts, high heels, and oil pans, the
symbols of mathematics all as dumb as statues.
: So, I guess we need some fancier sort of equation to really explain
: it. But by the time you develop the fancy equation, the beauty of a
: simple analogy is lost.
Call something paradise, kiss it good-bye, right?
: Man - look at all this pontification. I should stick with the few
: powerful word thing.
But the walk to that conclusion was a nice stroll, warn't it.
Regards,
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
: Excellent topic. The sub-topic here could be called "staggering pride."
: I have a certain amount of talent. When I was young I thought somehow that made
: me special. I soon realized that many if not all musicians are talented. Therefore I
: was no longer special. As I grew in my abilities I thought listeners would be
: impressed with my new found "hot licks." Nothing could be farther from the truth. The
: only thing the average listener cares about is being entertained. If they don't enjoy
: what is being presented, all the hot licks you have won't persuade them that you are
: special. I have discovered through the years that most musicians, (especially guitar
: players), are more interested in impression the half dozen other musicians that are
: listening rather than the thousand non-musicians that are buying the tickets.
: There own pride prevents them from being successful. If they would concentrate on
: the beauty of the performance rather than the image of mastery they would discover a
: whole new world of appreciation out there.
: Dave.
Pride. One of the seven deadly sins. You've just helped to explain why so
few us ever get any good. At least one of the reasons, anyway.
Regards,
Bob
Lutemann
writes:
>Well, maybe emptying the cat's litter box might be harder than
>"visualization", but I can't think of much else. Doubtless if your
>students can pick up the technique, I should be able to as well. In fact,
>I may well be doing it when I successfully memorize a piece.
>
>The true test, though, is the measure of the depth and scope of one's
>"by-heart" repetoire. I'd be nothing less than shocked to hear that on
>average, those of your students trained to visualize could reel off
>more than a few minutes of well-memorized music.
You are wrong on this. If visualization is done for a few minutes every day,
it soon becomes easy. One doesn't have to become Buddha to be able to do it. I
started with scales and within a few weeks memorized a one page piece. I don't
have a good music memory, but I was able to eventually memorize three hours of
material.
Bob Ashley
: >The true test, though, is the measure of the depth and scope of one's
: >"by-heart" repetoire. I'd be nothing less than shocked to hear that on
: >average, those of your students trained to visualize could reel off
: >more than a few minutes of well-memorized music.
: You are wrong on this. If visualization is done for a few minutes every day,
: it soon becomes easy. One doesn't have to become Buddha to be able to do it. I
: started with scales and within a few weeks memorized a one page piece. I don't
: have a good music memory, but I was able to eventually memorize three hours of
: material.
: Kent Murdick
Maybe there's a mismatch in what we respectively mean by "visualization".
Your emphasis seems to lean on a pragmatic, minimalist utility, whereas my
meaning shades toward the antic of theory. The drift I'm getting from you
is something like ["For the simple purpose we have at hand,] ...one
doesn't have to become Buddha to be able to do it." Fair enough, should
that be the case.
Speaking of emphasis, the term, "visualization" itself skews our attention
from the total method you describe. In the 6-step prescription only one
step deals with the actual technique of visualization. Step one
"quantifies" in specifying "how much" to work on at one time. Step two is
aural, and although one could say we "visualize" rhthym,it is something
which has no real visual presence. Step three is visualization. Step four
is a valuation of step three and also execution on the guitar. Step five
is analysis, including error detection and resultant adjustment. Step six
is repetition, assessment, and moving on to repeat the Six-steps in the
next section.
So, lest we get too side-tracked,let us say that your method embodies a
multi-variety of techniques ranging from analytic problem solving,
critical valuation, deliberated execution, and of course, visualization.
All in all the Six-steps make sense when it comes to memory work.
Nevertheless, I still have reservations (not objections) about the ease of
the visualization technique. Part of this evidence arrives in your
response to my doubts about easy-visualization. In response to my
speculations about student success using the technique, you recounted your
(the teacher's, the expert's, the experienced one's) success in
accumulating a 3-hour repetoire. I'm wondering why advocacy of what
appears to be a sound technique for students does not report stories of
student success.
I have used a similar method to study school stuff. I attempt to simulate
the "photographic memory", the look of the page in the text, how the
paragraphs block-out, illustrations, hyphenated words, long words, long,
short, medium sentences. Somehow, if I can see the page I can better
remember its content.
I may well try to import some of your ideas into my other studies. What I
like best is that visualization is a "set-up" of pre-execution.
Importantly, your technique demands that one be "sure of where everything
goes" and only then does one proceed to an intensely concentrated
execution with fingers and mind. This "being sure" I reckon is the
ridgepole of the whole method and if so, then the technique is probably
more properly referred as something like "critical self-reflexive
practice".
I'm going to have to start "doing it", though, instead just blabbering
about it.
Regards,
Bob Ashley
John Philip Dimick
>Seriously, I confess as I sigh that there is probably no
>better way (tao?) to achieving solid grasp of a piece than
>that what [Kent Murdick] show[s].
Why sigh, Bob? What more (or less!) could you want?
As Tom Poore pointed out earlier, the good players don't shy away
from buckling down. Murdick's method -- or should I say Shearer's
method -- shows you where and how to buckle. Now all that's left
is persistence, and we all know what Edison had to say about
persistence. Furthermore, persistence is simply a decision one
makes from moment to moment. Nothing to it! You should be glad!
Now it's my turn to sigh, or maybe to laugh. Wanna-be
guitar-players are always looking for a pill, a magical
practice-pill. "Take two of these magic pills every day for three
weeks and -- Hocus-Pocus! Presto-Change-O! -- you, too, shall be
able to play like John Williams!"
Many years ago, a friend of mine was having some guitar books
published by a famous and successful publisher of sheet music. He
had a meeting with this publisher to go over his contract and to
discuss a few things about the publishing industry. The old man, a
cynical veteran publisher of pop-guitar books, rather candidly
told my friend this:
"Young man, you may think we are in the music-publishing business,
but we are not. These books are Pills. Our basic customer is the
guy who stops at the music store on the way home from work, sees
our Roy Clark Big-Note Method on display, takes a look at it and
sees a few titles inside like MALAGUENA, FEELINGS, and LA BAMBA,
takes a look at the price and sees that it's only $4.95 and
decides what the heck, I'll buy it.
"So he takes the book home, gets out his guitar, cracks the book
open on the kitchen table, struggles with the Big Notes for
fifteen minutes, puts his guitar down, puts the book away and
never opens it again. It was just a Pill. Its effect lasts for
about an hour."
*** *** ***
One of the hardest things about teaching guitar is teaching the
student how to *enjoy* the necessary work, especially the student
who comes through the door looking for a Magic Pill. Baryshnikov
said his teacher didn't teach him how to dance, but how to work.
Landowska said: "If everyone knew how to work, everyone would be
a genius."
Having taught all ages for nearly 30 years, I've seen that many
amateur players, especially the adults with jobs and families,
have a hard time getting into the work of learning the guitar. You
sort of have to trick them into it. You spend an hour with them,
doing the work with them, but you make it seem like play. At the
end of the hour, you say: "There. That's what it's all about.
That's 'The Work.' Go home and keep doing a little of that every
day."
On the other hand, there are those who get into the work very
readily. One fellow I used to know, an orthopedic surgeon, was an
extremely busy man. He was new in town, he was starting a new
practice medical practice, had a new set of twins to go with the
two young children he already had, and he was on constant call for
the Emergency Room. He wondered if he could make reasonable
progress with so little time to practice.
I told him that if he couldn't practice at least 30 minutes a day,
five days a week, he'd better forget it. I told him he'd have to
use that time super-effectively, meaning that in each
practice/study session he'd have to get up to speed as quickly as
possible -- no noodling around!
Well, he was great. He could raise his concentration to the
required level in a snap. (I'll bet he was a good surgeon.) He
enjoyed his progress.
The students who thrive are the ones who make practice an
*enjoyable* part of their daily lives, who see guitar-playing as a
never-ending and enjoyable learning process. The surest sign that
a new student will not follow through is when they ask, "How long
before I'll be good enough to enjoy playing?" My answer: "30
minutes...or 30 years."
Anyone who has learned how to work -- and that includes how to
*enjoy* the work -- will progress quickly enough.
--
John Philip Dimick
j...@guitarist.com
www.guitarist.com
Jeffrey J. Weimer
Dimick) wrote:
>...
> Anyone who has learned how to work -- and that includes how to
> *enjoy* the work -- will progress quickly enough.
Thanks for the enjoyable post. It puts a good perspective on the need to
"work" (which is to say, to challenge oneself consistently and
wholeheartedly to the task at hand) to advance one's skill in playing
classical guitar. Indeed, the discussion need not be limited just to
classical guitar, or even to playing a musical instrument.
--
jjw
John Philip Dimick
>This is why I sigh as I admit that high-level CG demands
>persistence. Were it as easy as your post suggests, the
>Williams, Fisks, and Breams would have the likes of you
>and me and Charlie's aunt to compete with.
I implied that it's easy? I don't think so. I pointed out that the
way is clear, the choice is clear. Not easy, just clear.
>This idea of "buckling down" really gets me too! [...]
>This is just a simply rewrite of a standard patriarchal
>myth of courage.
etc.
If you say so, Bob. Frankly, since this seems to "get you" so
deeply, I think you are just projecting some personal issues.
>Now return to your opening paragraph. Simplicity? Easy as a
>decision?
Again, I didn't say that persistence is easy. There's a certain
amount of effort and sacrifice involved. But the way is *clear.*
What's simple is the choice: do this and you will succeed; don't,
and you won't. The doing is difficult, but the choice is right
there in front of you at every turn, staring you in the face. Kind
of like climbing Mt. Everest...you get your support together, you
give yourself the benefit of the best advice and gear you can
gather, you train and prepare, but then you have to keep deciding,
step after step after after step, to keep putting one foot in
front of the other.
>Although your surgeon/student was able to impress his teacher at
>the early stages, what about his persistence? Did he manage to
>wrestle, say, the Chaconne, get it to submit to his persistence?
We had only a few months together before I moved to Oregon. In the
last three or four weeks before I left, he learned and memorized
Leyenda -- from scratch. Played it very well, too. He's a smart
guy. Knows his limits. (In other words, he does what works.)
John Philip Dimick
Abandon Wakefulness All Ye Who Enter Here!)
Bob wrote:
>: >This is why I sigh as I admit that high-level CG demands
>: >persistence. Were it as easy as your post suggests, the
>: >Williams, Fisks, and Breams would have the likes of you
>: >and me and Charlie's aunt to compete with.
I wrote:
>: I implied that it's easy? I don't think so. I pointed out that
the
>: way is clear, the choice is clear. Not easy, just clear.
Bob wrote:
>A phrase such as "Nothing to it" indeed gives the impression that
>the way is easy.
Ok, let's go over this agin. (Persistence!)
Originally, Bob wrote:
>>Seriously, I confess as I sigh that there is probably no
>>better way (tao?) to achieving solid grasp of a piece than
>>that what [Kent Murdick] show[s].
There you have it: "No better way."
To which I responded:
>Why sigh, Bob? What more (or less!) could you want?
What more could you want than to know the best way?
>As Tom Poore pointed out earlier, the good players don't shy
>away from buckling down. Murdick's method -- or should I say
>Shearer's method -- shows you where and how to buckle. Now
>all that's left is persistence, and we all know what Edison
>had to say about persistence. Furthermore, persistence is
>simply a decision one makes from moment to moment. Nothing
>to it! You should be glad!
Dubious form to quote myself repeatedly quote myself in the same
post, I know, but this seems to be the main sticking-point for
you, so, cadet-class bodhisattva that I am, let me see if I can
make things easier for you.
"Persistence is simply a decision one makes from moment to moment.
Nothing to it! You should be glad!"
There's the thesis with which you are quibbling. (BTW, the first
sentence is not my own formulation. I saw something similar in
someone's email signature and recognized it as true.)
Shall we use a more formal definition of persistence? My trusty
and tattered Random House College Dictionary gives: "persistence:
1. the act or fact of persisting." Ok, let's look at: "persist: 1.
to continue steadily or firmly in some state, purpose, course of
action, or the like, esp. in spite of opposition, remonstrance,
etc."
I'll stand by that, as patriarchal as you please.
As for the "nothing to it," that refers to my expedient,
boiled-down way of describing persistence; it does not describe
persistence itself. My thought was that you should be glad that
the solution to the problem of memorizing music -- namely, that
persistence in practicing the oh-so-simple-to-understand
visualization technique described by Murdick will yield the
rewards you seemed so earnestly to be seeking -- had been placed
before you in inescapably clear language.
>: Again, I didn't say that persistence is easy. There's a certain
>: amount of effort and sacrifice involved. But the way is
*clear.*
>: What's simple is the choice: do this and you will succeed;
don't,
>: and you won't. The doing is difficult, but the choice is right
>: there in front of you at every turn, staring you in the face.
Kind
>: of like climbing Mt. Everest...you get your support together,
you
>: give yourself the benefit of the best advice and gear you can
>: gather, you train and prepare, but then you have to keep
deciding,
>: step after step after after step, to keep putting one foot in
>: front of the other.
>
>Let us substitute salvation for wanting to improve the guitar. In
doing
>so, your text becomes a scripture, complete with mountain myth,
myth of
>the tao, sacrifice or offering, and the journey narrative. I'm
not saying
>by any means that you're wrong, no, not by any stretch. I'm only
saying
>that your advocating a belief system, and as such,it is less
settled and
>should be more open to discussion, interrogation, and discovery
than the
>closed system you seem to propose.
>By closed, I don't mean "closed-minded", but rather
"unproblematized". By
>"unproblematized" I don't mean oversimplified. What I mean is
that there
>is something to be learned about persistence and musical practice
that
>need not quit its curiosity too early. For instance, one
potential point
>of departure is your ideas about getting students to "enjoy" in
the thing
>they must persist in if they are to improve. What are the
implications of
>persistence vis a vis enjoyment? Whither persistence when
enjoyment
>withers? And what about futile persistence? Surely you've come
across the
>pathetic case where the Herculean effort renders but a
Lilliputian result?
>The distribution of rewards of persistence is certainly not
democratic.
Well, these tangential take-offs, diffusive distractions, and
etymological exigencies are all grist for some other mill.
I used to play chess with a certain Grandmaster who's favorite
saying was, "There is always a 'But.'" What he meant was that
after every game he won at the coffeehouse -- and he won virtually
all of them -- his opponent would say something like: "But what if
I had moved the Knight to Rook-3 instead of Bishop-3? But what if
I had done this? Or that?" Mustafa would patiently demonstrate how
he would have won in every variation, but some of his opponents
never gave up in their postmortem efforts to redeem their pride.
Finally, Mustafa would intone, "Dare ees alwhays a Bhot..." and
walk away from the table for a coffee refill.
Cya! ;-)
Lutemann
>As Tom Poore pointed out earlier, the good players don't shy away
>from buckling down. Murdick's method -- or should I say Shearer's
>method -- shows you where and how to buckle. Now all that's left
>is persistence, and we all know what Edison had to say about
>persistence. Furthermore, persistence is simply a decision one
Please, it is (as you said) not my method. BTW, this is one of best posts I've
ever seen on this list.
Kent
Bob Ashley
: ax...@chebucto.ns.ca (Bob Ashley) wrote:
: >Seriously, I confess as I sigh that there is probably no
: >better way (tao?) to achieving solid grasp of a piece than
: >that what [Kent Murdick] show[s].
: Why sigh, Bob? What more (or less!) could you want?
: As Tom Poore pointed out earlier, the good players don't shy away
: from buckling down. Murdick's method -- or should I say Shearer's
: method -- shows you where and how to buckle. Now all that's left
: is persistence, and we all know what Edison had to say about
: persistence. Furthermore, persistence is simply a decision one
: makes from moment to moment. Nothing to it! You should be glad!
Persistence is easy to spot as "all that's left." Persistence is simple to
define, sure. Simple. As you say, "Nothing to it!". Of course, this
elementary nature of persistence, it's clarity of outline, it semantic
lucidity, and the all the rest of is easy to glad about.
Clarence, at 5'6" and 380lbs, is about 200lbs overweight. But look, here
comes someone with the simplest of simple formulae. If you want to lose
weight, eat less, persist in eating less! Nothing to it! Simply a decision
one makes from moment to moment. "You should be glad!"
I would argue, and continents of evidence would bear me out: persistence
has ALOT to it, it is infinitely more than a decisions, and entails
everything in the way of commitment that the "moment to moment" idea
obscures. Your figure of "moment to moment" implies a capriciousness that
flies in the face of ideas about Stoic-stick-to-it-ive-ness. The
simplicity of the concept, of the decision, of the description in no way
makes the "doing" of persistence any easier. Think of the last 50 New
Year's Resolutions you've made but now lay petrified by neglect.
This is why I sigh as I admit that high-level CG demands persistence. Were
it as easy as your post suggests, the Williams, Fisks, and Breams would
have the likes of you and me and Charlie's aunt to compete with.
This idea of "buckling down" really gets me too! "...good players don't
shy
away from buckling down." This is just a simply rewrite of a standard
patriarchal myth of courage. "Buckling down" although it entails no
courage, for nothing is imminently threatening, is given the testosteronic
once-over to make it seem as if only the intrepid hero need apply.
"Shy away?" Again what threatens? I poke fun at the metaphors chosen
because these types of "figures of courage" recur again and again in
endeavours taken on mainly by man. Men must never "shy away" from
anything.
This is why, if men had some sort of equivalent to the feminine napkin,
they would attempt to heroize it, turn the loss of blood into some aspect
of manly courage. This is why they'd call their protection pads
"Rope-a-Dope" or "Perfect Game" and have them emblazoned with fascimile
signatures of Muhammed Ali, Mark McGuire, and Sylvester Stallone. These
hulks would, to use your words not "shy awy from buckling down".
: Now it's my turn to sigh, or maybe to laugh. Wanna-be
: guitar-players are always looking for a pill, a magical
: practice-pill. "Take two of these magic pills every day for three
: weeks and -- Hocus-Pocus! Presto-Change-O! -- you, too, shall be
: able to play like John Williams!"
Ya, I've seen guys taking those pills too. Pathetic.
: Many years ago, a friend of mine was having some guitar books
: published by a famous and successful publisher of sheet music. He
: had a meeting with this publisher to go over his contract and to
: discuss a few things about the publishing industry. The old man, a
: cynical veteran publisher of pop-guitar books, rather candidly
: told my friend this:
: "Young man, you may think we are in the music-publishing business,
: but we are not. These books are Pills. Our basic customer is the
: guy who stops at the music store on the way home from work, sees
: our Roy Clark Big-Note Method on display, takes a look at it and
: sees a few titles inside like MALAGUENA, FEELINGS, and LA BAMBA,
: takes a look at the price and sees that it's only $4.95 and
: decides what the heck, I'll buy it.
: "So he takes the book home, gets out his guitar, cracks the book
: open on the kitchen table, struggles with the Big Notes for
: fifteen minutes, puts his guitar down, puts the book away and
: never opens it again. It was just a Pill. Its effect lasts for
: about an hour."
: *** *** ***
That sounds so believable. Music is consumed by consumer and once the
commodity is consumed consumer goes on the hunt for the next thing to
consume. Ah! Fly-fishing. OoHHH, make own beer! Look! Mountain Climbing!
My, a solar pool de-scumifier! Tee hee! French Tickler.
: One of the hardest things about teaching guitar is teaching the
: student how to *enjoy* the necessary work, especially the student
: who comes through the door looking for a Magic Pill. Baryshnikov
: said his teacher didn't teach him how to dance, but how to work.
: Landowska said: "If everyone knew how to work, everyone would be
: a genius."
I like this story. "Talk me how to work". Now it does show it's "puritan"
soul at work here, but it's a new twist.
Now return to your opening paragraph. Simplicity? Easy as a decision? You
should be glad? My sigh arrives from the spirit as Baryshnikov's, for
sadly, hardly anyone knows how to work [and of course work implies
persistent work].
: Having taught all ages for nearly 30 years, I've seen that many
: amateur players, especially the adults with jobs and families,
: have a hard time getting into the work of learning the guitar. You
: sort of have to trick them into it. You spend an hour with them,
: doing the work with them, but you make it seem like play. At the
: end of the hour, you say: "There. That's what it's all about.
: That's 'The Work.' Go home and keep doing a little of that every
: day."
: On the other hand, there are those who get into the work very
: readily. One fellow I used to know, an orthopedic surgeon, was an
: extremely busy man. He was new in town, he was starting a new
: practice medical practice, had a new set of twins to go with the
: two young children he already had, and he was on constant call for
: the Emergency Room. He wondered if he could make reasonable
: progress with so little time to practice.
: I told him that if he couldn't practice at least 30 minutes a day,
: five days a week, he'd better forget it. I told him he'd have to
: use that time super-effectively, meaning that in each
: practice/study session he'd have to get up to speed as quickly as
: possible -- no noodling around!
: Well, he was great. He could raise his concentration to the
: required level in a snap. (I'll bet he was a good surgeon.) He
: enjoyed his progress.
Funny anecdote. Credible and illustrative of your point. Evidently there
are some people pre-disposed to succeed at study. I'm curious, though.
Although your surgeon/student was able to impress his teacher at the early
stages, what about his persistence? Did he manage to wrestle, say, the
Chaconne, get it to submit to his persistence? I ask this because it seems
to me that the intensity of concentration one can whip up for 30 minutes
of practice is quite different from the marathonic steadiness required to
practice for 3, 5, 10, 15, 40+ years. Here again is persistence in its
fullest of splendid permanence.
: The students who thrive are the ones who make practice an
: *enjoyable* part of their daily lives, who see guitar-playing as a
: never-ending and enjoyable learning process. The surest sign that
: a new student will not follow through is when they ask, "How long
: before I'll be good enough to enjoy playing?" My answer: "30
: minutes...or 30 years."
: Anyone who has learned how to work -- and that includes how to
: *enjoy* the work -- will progress quickly enough.
Your wisdom here calls upon those twin towers, "Freedom" & "Necessity".
One is never truly free until what one wants to do is exactly the same as
what one must do. Similarly, we are never really "free" to do what we want
on the classical guitar until we submit to the necessary regimes that will
confer us that freedom. In this sense freedom and necessity fuse. When
that happens the fusion speaks and if we are lucky, it beckons to us.
Enjoyed your post,
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
: >Seriously, I confess as I sigh that there is probably no
: >better way (tao?) to achieving solid grasp of a piece than
: >that what [Kent Murdick] show[s].
: Why sigh, Bob? What more (or less!) could you want?
The sigh is resignation. I've put years and years of study into the CG,
mainly in my late childhood to middle teens. On and off I've done the same
thing, for decades, up to the present. I sigh, because although I've
demonstrated to my teachers, my family and friends that I possess in good
measure what seems to you to be a quite unproblematic quality of
persistence, I'm still but a fair-to-middling player. I enjoy no
overabundance of innate musical talent and my roots are working class, not
middle or upper-middle.
I sigh because my many years with classical guitar has brought me as much
joy as raising my own children, and yet, my art remains private,
introverted, and imperfect.
I sigh because I know full well that persistence is what it would take to
hoist my technique up to next level of advancement, but persistence,
ongoingly is something I can muster or commit to fully for the next few
years.
I sigh because even for all the persistence I might put in, I can't help
thinking about the "musical investment". By that I mean, the thinness of
the CG repetoire in its "Genius" "Master" aspect. Where is Mozart,
Beethoven, Gershwin, Shostakovich, Prokofiev? Pick up a violin and you
pick up the weight of western civilization. Pick up a guitar and you pick
up one of its orphan daughters. The violin is great in the ways of Caesar
and Napoleon; the guitar is great in the way of your first girlfriend and
motherhood. Frankly, I prefer the CG's feminine vulnerability, but at
times I sigh for the lack of "balls" for the lack of Beethhoven.
Any serious CG player who has not mourned over the deathly absence of the
great western composers in her repetoire, cannot be much of a music lover.
I may be ejaculatory in saying so, but many times I've dreamed (and nearly
wetly) over the gift that would be a book of Mozart preludes for guitar or
a Rhapsody by Gershwin. Persistence will never, ever give me these things.
[Although I must admit that your transcriptions of Ellington come close!
But don't take that for me getting fresh.]
I sigh because persistence entails a sort of "occupational blindness". For
as one persists in one pursuit another must let go. We gather insight in
one neighborhood of activity only to lose sight somewhere else. In this
sense, if one believes that persistence is all it takes then persistence
is yet another pill.
We skew our stories
here if we insist on never bringing other elements in our lives that
demand our attention. We no longer live in a pastoral world where we
search for pleasures and pursuits to cure our "ennui". In 1898, life and
times still has a viscous, slow-moving character about it. Compare to a
day in the life of any of the average "us". Pesistence is ambushed at
every turn.
I sigh because wherever we witness someone entrenched in a persistence of
habit aimed at accomplishing some great objective, we also witness
tragedy in the making. Kenneth Burke, one of the great American thinkers
puts it nicely: "We might almost lay it down as a rule of thumb: Where
someone is straining to do something, look for evidence of the tragic
mechanism." (Permanance and Change, 195) This sigh aims at what must be
sacrificed to the cult of classical guitar perserverence. Aren't we in the
realm of the tragic when technique is "glorified" to the extent that we
feel it natural to "buckle down" to achieve it. Thus, I sigh for as much
as I want my technique to improve, so do I also want to preserve my
marriage, my friendships, myself. True persistence would weigh these
things economically and the tragic decision would erase wife, friend, and
self with one wave of the hand. Tragedy.
I apologize for waxing personal as this sort of thing must be a
tremendous bore to most people. Still, I think, perhaps in a
deconstructive sort of gesture, that the simple reassurance that
persistence is the answer is rather like the very pill this
reassurance hoped to protect us from. It's simplistic, like a pill.
I'm not saying the persistence is not necessary. All I'm saying is that
it's far from being sufficient. And that's it's not so straightforward a
matter as, say, frying up the bacon or making a weekly bank deposit.
Resignedly,
Bob AShley
Bob Ashley
: : >Seriously, I confess as I sigh that there is probably no
: : >better way (tao?) to achieving solid grasp of a piece than
: : >that what [Kent Murdick] show[s].
: : Why sigh, Bob? What more (or less!) could you want?
: I sigh because I know full well that persistence is what it would take to
: hoist my technique up to next level of advancement, but persistence,
: ongoingly is something I can muster or commit to fully for the next few
: years.
Sorry, sloppy typing. Should read "cannot muster".
: [Although I must admit that your transcriptions of Ellington come close!
: But don't take that for me getting fresh.]
Sorry. I was thinking of Spencer Doidge here and momentarily his and your
identities blurred. Bad manners.
: Resignedly,
: Bob AShley
CCarter756
writes:
>Clarence, at 5'6" and 380lbs, is about 200lbs overweight. But look, here
>comes someone with the simplest of simple formulae. If you want to lose
>weight, eat less, persist in eating less! Nothing to it! Simply a decision
>one makes from moment to moment. "You should be glad!"
>I would argue, and continents of evidence would bear me out: persistence
>has ALOT to it, it is infinitely more than a decisions, and entails
>everything in the way of commitment that the "moment to moment" idea
>obscures. Your figure of "moment to moment" implies a capriciousness that
>flies in the face of ideas about Stoic-stick-to-it-ive-ness. The
>simplicity of the concept, of the decision, of the description in no way
>makes the "doing" of persistence any easier. Think of the last 50 New
>Year's Resolutions you've made but now lay petrified by neglect.
Hmm, well I'm learning CG, and I just lost 46 pounds in the last year, so I can
tell you with confidence that it IS just that simple - in fact, the only way to
do it is moment-to-moment. I feel like a snack, do I choose an apple or a bowl
of ice cream? Do I watch that ER rerun (mm, George Clooney, whatta hunk!), go
for a walk, or practice?
Stoic stick-to-it-ive-ness is really self defeating - when I started my weight
loss program, I sat down and did the math to figure out how long I would have
to remain on the 1200 calorie diet to lose the weight I wanted, and came up
with 26 weeks. SIX MONTHS! (It actually took 8 months) Add in the fact that
you also have to change your eating and exercise habits for life (wait - no ice
cream for LIFE?) and the whole task became paralyzingly daunting to
contemplate. This is what happens to New Year's Resolutions. I can't be
perfect for a year, but I can make a good decision right now. I can handle the
little hour by hour decisions just fine - I can forgo that ER rerun, or that
bowl of ice cream this time, and if I occasionally decide to indulge in a
Clooney-fest rather than practice, well, I can always make a better decision
next time. As long as I make good decisions most of the time, I will continue
making good progress.
Obviously, there are some decisions that are a lot harder than "Clooney or
Carulli." If your four year old needs to be rushed to the hospital,or has a
special event to attend, obviously you're going to forgo practice for that
night. But the next night, you're going to be faced with a fresh opportunity
to decide, and you can feel good about taking that time for practice, because
you know that it's okay to miss it for something important.
Realistically, I'm never going to be one of the virtuosos that Tom Poore
described. But it is well within my power to become a guitarist who can play
classical music reasonably well, and give some pleasure to the people who hear
me play.
Cindy Carter
ccart...@aol.com
Jim String
>
>Realistically, I'm never going to be one of the virtuosos that Tom Poore
>described. But it is well within my power to become a guitarist who can play
>classical music reasonably well, and give some pleasure to the people who hear
>me play.
For me there is often greater magic in listening to ordinary people
like you and Bob. Some of the most inspiring performances I've heard
were on the streetcorner, fleas and all.
Best,
Jim
Bob Ashley
: >This is why I sigh as I admit that high-level CG demands
: >persistence. Were it as easy as your post suggests, the
: >Williams, Fisks, and Breams would have the likes of you
: >and me and Charlie's aunt to compete with.
: I implied that it's easy? I don't think so. I pointed out that the
: way is clear, the choice is clear. Not easy, just clear.
A phrase such as "Nothing to it " indeed gives the impression that the way
is easy. Nothing serious here, just a miscue between our respective
framing of the issue. In the end we do concur on the difficulties of
persistence. That the main thing.
: >This idea of "buckling down" really gets me too!
[...] : >This is just a simply rewrite of a standard patriarchal
: >myth of courage.
: etc.
: If you say so, Bob. Frankly, since this seems to "get you" so
: deeply, I think you are just projecting some personal issues.
Here I have to remain insistent for your response is the typical write-off
of the patriarchal position contra anything that opposes it. The feminist
reply might be that yes, I'm projecting personal, but don't pretend for
minute that your position don't do dat, that it somehow transcends the
personal.The political position of all is the one that claims to be
apolitical. My point, personal or othewise is that your
advocacy of persistence rests its foundation on a metaphor of courage. I
merely think that the issue of improving one's guitar technique can get
beyond the altar of courage.
: >Now return to your opening paragraph. Simplicity? Easy as a
: >decision?
: Again, I didn't say that persistence is easy. There's a certain
Regards,
Bob
Bob Ashley
: In article <6q3974$baq$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, ax...@chebucto.ns.ca (Bob Ashley)
: writes:
: Hmm, well I'm learning CG, and I just lost 46 pounds in the last year, so I can
: tell you with confidence that it IS just that simple - in fact, the only way to
: do it is moment-to-moment. I feel like a snack, do I choose an apple or a bowl
: of ice cream? Do I watch that ER rerun (mm, George Clooney, whatta hunk!), go
: for a walk, or practice?
Congratulations. This is quite a laudable accomplishment. Nevertheless,
all the details, the complications, the nuances, the stage directions of
your story have been left out. Every day you lived a drama of losing
weight and every day must have been a multi-voiced variation on a theme of
persistence. I'm sure if you were writing memoirs, a novel, a poem, the
drama would be deadly boring by your own count. It's perspective I
suppose.
For instance I quit smoking 4 months ago. Is my story like yours? That is,
that it "IS just that simple"? Not on your life. Persistence is word like
faith; there's a perspective that sees a stark simplicity and there's
another perspective which writes a Biblical totality about the same thing.
Here is where our respective views diverge, I think. We disagree about the
"essence" of a certain human foible called "persistence". These views are
necessarily impossible to reconcile, then again, maybe not, but they are
quite different. What I can appreciate about your view is the strength of
its informing powers when it comes to solving problems of teaching and
personal lifestyle. Too, I can see that this view has explanatory power;
it figures out solutions to problems. But this methodology is not
everybody's.
regards,
Bob Ashley
jrs...@my-dejanews.com
lute...@aol.com (Lutemann) wrote:
> In article <6q2k16$qud$1...@supernews.com>, j...@guitarist.com (John Philip
Dimick)
> writes:
>
> >from buckling down. Murdick's method -- or should I say Shearer's
> >method -- shows you where and how to buckle. Now all that's left
> >is persistence, and we all know what Edison had to say about
> >persistence. Furthermore, persistence is simply a decision one
>
I've
> ever seen on this list.
You're right, Kent. It almost makes me want to come in
out of the cold ("It's very cooooold in spaaaace." - Kann).
JS
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jim String
>In article <199808030042...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> lute...@aol.com (Lutemann) wrote:
>> In article <6q2k16$qud$1...@supernews.com>, j...@guitarist.com (John Philip
>Dimick)
>> writes:
>>
>> >As Tom Poore pointed out earlier, the good players don't shy away
>> >from buckling down. Murdick's method -- or should I say Shearer's
>> >method -- shows you where and how to buckle. Now all that's left
>> >is persistence, and we all know what Edison had to say about
>> >persistence. Furthermore, persistence is simply a decision one
>>
>> Please, it is (as you said) not my method. BTW, this is one of best posts
>I've
>> ever seen on this list.
>
>You're right, Kent. It almost makes me want to come in
>out of the cold ("It's very cooooold in spaaaace." - Kann).
Ah, I just _knew_ you weren't wearing red...
Best,
Jim
Tom Poore
> My point, personal or othewise is that your advocacy of per-
> sistence rests its foundation on a metaphor of courage. I merely
> think that the issue of improving one's guitar technique can get
> beyond the altar of courage.
I read the first sentence as "persistence = courage." I'm not sure I
agree with this, and I'm not sure why you've redefined persistence in
this way. As for your second sentence, I don't agree with it. Regardless
of all the other factors that go into learning guitar technique, how can
we "get beyond" the necessity for persistence? Can anyone learn to play
the guitar by giving up whenever something gets difficult?
> Let us substitute salvation for wanting to improve the guitar. In
> doing so, your text becomes a scripture, complete with mountain
> myth, myth of the tao, sacrifice or offering, and the journey
> narrative. I'm not saying by any means that you're wrong, no, not
> by any stretch. I'm only saying that your advocating a belief sys-
> tem, and as such,it is less settled and should be more open to
> discussion, interrogation, and discovery than the closed system
> you seem to propose.
While John Philip Dimick's "nothing to it" statement was an unfortunate
choice of words (and one he corrected in a subsequent post), I don't
think anyone has said that persistence alone is all you need to master
the guitar. What we're saying is that it's a necessary element--without
it, you never get out of the starting gate.
> What I mean is that there is something to be learned about per-
> sistence and musical practice that need not quit its curiosity too
> early.
There's no time at which you should abandon curiosity. Indeed,
curiousity is one of the elements that drives persistence.
> And what about futile persistence? Surely you've come across
> the pathetic case where the Herculean effort renders but a Lilli-
> putian result? The distribution of rewards of persistence is cer-
> tainly not democratic.
There's a difference between unproductive persistence and productive
persistence. Persistence without intelligence is a dead end. No one who
has posted on this thread has said otherwise.
CCarter wrote:
> Hmm, well I'm learning CG, and I just lost 46 pounds in the last
> year, so I can tell you with confidence that it IS just that simple -
> in fact, the only way to do it is moment-to-moment.
Bob Ashley wrote:
> Congratulations. This is quite a laudable accomplishment.
> Nevertheless, all the details, the complications, the nuances,
> the stage directions of your story have been left out. Every
> day you lived a drama of losing weight and every day must have
> been a multi-voiced variation on a theme of persistence.
Bob, I really believe you're asking too much of us. Of course there are
details, complications, and nuances to be considered. And no one denies
their importance. But no one can accurately predict and describe
everything you'll encounter on the road to mastery. Maybe you'll
encounter something we haven't encountered. Maybe you won't encounter
something we have encountered. Maybe we can explain some things before
you encounter them, but you won't really understand the explanation
until you've encountered the problem yourself. Maybe you'll encounter a
problem that you solve on your own so quickly that no explanation from
anyone else is needed.
We learn best by doing. Those who sit in the mud and demand answers to
every imaginable contingency will never get started. Better are those
who move forward, confident that either they or their mentors will be
able to solve any problem they encounter along the way.
Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
Tim Berens
Does anybody else think that Bob Ashley is secretly the character
"Wilson" from the TV show Home Improvement?
Tim
jrs...@my-dejanews.com
I must correct myself: it's "Khan" not "Kann" (which is how
"Khan" is pronounced by someone from Louisiana :)
Red? I don't know what you mean.
Bob Ashley
: I read the first sentence as "persistence = courage." I'm not sure I
: agree with this, and I'm not sure why you've redefined persistence in
: this way. As for your second sentence, I don't agree with it. Regardless
: of all the other factors that go into learning guitar technique, how can
: we "get beyond" the necessity for persistence? Can anyone learn to play
: the guitar by giving up whenever something gets difficult?
We are getting "beyond" it right now, simply by continuing the
conversation, tuning our definitions, cross-examining our assumptions. At
the start of this thread we have stark definitions, oversimplified edicts,
and so forth, but now the term "persistence" is being qualified, focused,
and traded upon in a new way. We "get beyond" the necessity of persistence
perhaps by seeing it from other angles. For instance, we could lay down
the whole intrepid Rocky-like air that persistence has about it by saying
that achievement on the guitar entails "submission". In other words we
"submit" or "surrender" to the requisite regime, and through this
surrender we achieve mastery.
Mere semantics? A weak charge since all we have in a newsgroup is semantic
situations, situations of words. What you mean by persistence is simply
less rock solid in my lexicon than it is in yours.
So yes, I do agree that we cannot "neglect" practice if mastery is our
goal. I'm just arguing for awareness of the ambiguities and ideologies
that are packed into a word like "persistence". There are
alternative perspectives, like the idea of submission. I like this frame
of reference because unlike "persistence" a word packed with notions of
"control", "success", "belligerence", "stubborness", "rigid
single-mindedness, the word submission hands control over to the art. We
"give ourselves" over to practice, we "submit" to something larger than
ourselves. Instead of agent, we become patient. To my mind, an attitudinal
shift must occur between the calling for persistence and the calling for
submission. The word is important for whichever one is selected becomes
the centre star in a constellation of opinions, myths, ideologies, and
yes, gendered attitudes.
: There's no time at which you should abandon curiosity. Indeed,
: curiousity is one of the elements that drives persistence.
There seems to be no curiosity about the "foibles" and "prejudices", that
baggage that the word "persistence" lugs around. I detect a rising
attitude of impatience that we should just all agree that word means this
and that's that.
: > And what about futile persistence? Surely you've come across
: > the pathetic case where the Herculean effort renders but a Lilli-
: > putian result? The distribution of rewards of persistence is cer-
: > tainly not democratic.
: There's a difference between unproductive persistence and productive
: persistence. Persistence without intelligence is a dead end. No one who
: has posted on this thread has said otherwise.
You see here, Tom, is a fine example of what I was talking about earlier,
about the conversation adding nuance and texture to the meanings we try to
convey. You've introduced something brand new here with the proposal that
there are different "species" of persistence, an idea that hitherto lay
dormant. Additionaly, one species possesses intelligence, and I presume
the other species must be stupid. This is important for the reason that
your taxonomy complicates persistence by classifying types .And according
to these new ideas, I myself would have to confess that sometimes my own
persistence in practice is just plain stupid. I agree with your point at
this juncture, but I'm cool to the suggestion that because "no one...said
otherwise" we shouldn't say it now. I don't presume that we have group
solidarity on this matter of types or shades of persistence.
: Bob Ashley wrote:
: > Congratulations. This is quite a laudable accomplishment.
: > Nevertheless, all the details, the complications, the nuances,
: > the stage directions of your story have been left out. Every
: > day you lived a drama of losing weight and every day must have
: > been a multi-voiced variation on a theme of persistence.
: Bob, I really believe you're asking too much of us. Of course there are
: details, complications, and nuances to be considered. And no one denies
: their importance. But no one can accurately predict and describe
: everything you'll encounter on the road to mastery. Maybe you'll
: encounter something we haven't encountered. Maybe you won't encounter
: something we have encountered. Maybe we can explain some things before
: you encounter them, but you won't really understand the explanation
: until you've encountered the problem yourself. Maybe you'll encounter a
: problem that you solve on your own so quickly that no explanation from
: anyone else is needed.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I ask too much. Then again, people are answering
the call to repackage their thoughts, consider new twists, add new
wrinkles, such as you are doing now. Actually I feel quite rewarded by the
critical consideration going into this thread by all participants.
In answer to the charge, however, my case has it that the case for
persistence was presented as unproblematic, oversimplified, and something
to accepted a priori.
: We learn best by doing. Those who sit in the mud and demand answers to
: every imaginable contingency will never get started. Better are those
: who move forward, confident that either they or their mentors will be
: able to solve any problem they encounter along the way.
The implications of your last paragraph are transparent enough:I take it
that I am one of those you describe as one "who sit in the
mud...demand answers...never get started." Sulking. Demanding. Petty.
Indolent. I take no offense to this loaded remark as it seems to me you
are doing your rhetorical best to get your point across. You are
"persisting".
Naturally, the rhetoric of the demonic, lazy, slug must have its
antithesis--your second character: progressive, analytical, collaborative,
intelligent. We have a white knight! Everything I'm not. And why? Why
because he understands persistence and I don't.
Such romance, Tom.
Have you ever read _Inner Game of Tennis_? It seems to me that the writer
advocated a Tao of non-persistence as a path towards better tennis skills.
Should this author and I dwell and sulk in the mud together? (joking)
Enjoying the banter,
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
Distribution:
John Philip Dimick (j...@guitarist.com) wrote:
<snippage>
: Originally, Bob wrote:
: >>Seriously, I confess as I sigh that there is probably no
: >>better way (tao?) to achieving solid grasp of a piece than
: >>that what [Kent Murdick] show[s].
: There you have it: "No better way."
But Kent's method is not advertised as "Persistence in CG Practice".
Certainly his method favors the persistent adherent, but his "way" is
about "visualization", not about admonitions of proper attitude.
My kudos were not in homage to the god persistence but rather to Kent's
methodology.
: As for the "nothing to it," that refers to my expedient,
: boiled-down way of describing persistence; it does not describe
: persistence itself. My thought was that you should be glad that
: the solution to the problem of memorizing music -- namely, that
: persistence in practicing the oh-so-simple-to-understand
: visualization technique described by Murdick will yield the
: rewards you seemed so earnestly to be seeking -- had been placed
: before you in inescapably clear language.
I don't think we've found a solution. We've found an approach. And I could
write a book about why the "oh-so-simple-to-understand" is so
"difficult-to-understand". I have the antics and foibles of nations of
people who, in the face of such a so-called simple technique, fail to
understand the ostensiveness of its perfection. Let me illustrate.
I tried visualizing the first few bars of "Quadrivial Quandary" a study by
Andrew York published in Tennant's _Pumping Nylon_. Let's interrogate what
happened as I persisted.
Visualization problems:
1) Which vantage? As if disembodied and watching oneself? Overhead view,
looking down on hands? One hand? Two hands? How does one get the right
view in one's mind and hold it. Should we hold it?
2) The view is not photographic. The view is the work of imagination and
mind, for our brains cannot see but for our eyes. Is this seeing?
3) Can I hear this view? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
4) Do I visualize the abstraction of rhythm? Do I do this simultaneously
as I "see" my hands. What does the duration of a quarter-note look like?
5) What about the musical notation? Do I somehow work an image of this
into my cranial collage of images. There were moments as I remember seeing
the notes on the page in my visualization process. Sometimes they blended
with (bled into?) images of my fingers pumping.
6) Who but Buddha could perform this technique and not lose the image to
some other thought, e.g. a Cindy Crawford thigh, a big cheeseburger, that
letter from the ex's lawyer, the dog goober on the deck. Don't make me
laugh by suggesting you or any other person here can do visualization with
no breakdowns.Something else is operative, but what?
7) How many dimensions does this inner-seeing possess. Two? Three? None?
8) Zoom in? Zoom out? Dissolve to head and shoulder. Cross-cut to
close-up of left hand finger pads quivering over the frets. Camera work.
Special effects? Who or what is in charge of production?
9) Colour? Black and White? Freeze-frame? Stills? Sketch? Photo? Relief?
10) Are we simultaneously directing ourselves forward as we watch
ourselves? Is there an inner dialogue between agent and co-agent? Overseer
and player? Blindman and Seer?
11) Which human mind is as simple as a projection screen on which one
can
watch oneself doing something before they do it, and while they do it.
12) Does one see the 'totality' of the few bars selected, or is the vision
temporal? If the vision is temporal, how does it know when to stop except
that it knows the totality?
13) Which part of the brain locates the target string and fret, places the
finger, and does all the rest of that jazz while another part watches?
14) Is there any linguistic activity during the visualizaiton process?
"Come on, you can do it...Shit!...missed...can't you see where you're
going?'
15) How detailed is the visualized image? Shadows and shapes? Lines and
colours? Shades and modelling?
16) Why can't I remember what I see until I see it over and over and over
and over and over again. Yet, when I use my eyes I know that the orange
juice is right behind the milk in the fridge.
17) Why in order to visualize I close my eyes? Essentially visualization
is a form "blindness", or we might say that "blindness" is a requisite of
"inner seeing".
Perhaps the technique is mis-named. For what we may actually be doing is
short-circuiting vision in the cause of strengthening a "tactile" memory.
By analogy, we are trying to learn the music the way a blind person learns
the streets. Perhaps vision is a "crutch", not a liberating metaphor at
all. It's odd, but as I practiced the technique, discovering all these
questions as I visualized, I felt somehow closer to blindness than vision.
The reliance on finding and holding "pictures in the blackness" so unlike
my regular experience of seeing with my eyes.
These are few points which have received not a single iota of attention in
the descriptions of visualizations. And yet, is my interrogation totally
without merit. Are these not legitimate, if naive, questions? Not so
naive, in my opinion, as simply saying, "Just do it". That's not a
pedagogy sensitive to dialectic, that's simply a commandment, and a
completely arbitrary one at that, if not explained.
Surely someone really good at 'visualization' can describe what they see
so others can learn what to "look for". Again we have a marvellously
intricate, deeply textured, semantically slippery term whose cash value
has no real standard to support it. Even so, the present economy demands
that we accept the "face value" of our semantic currency and nothing
else.
Here is what one of the economists thinks about interrogating the cash
value of terms like "visualization" and "persistence"...Notice the desire
to close down the discussion by appealing to what is supposed to appear as
unquestionably good common sense.......
John wrote:
: Well, these tangential take-offs, diffusive distractions, and
: etymological exigencies are all grist for some other mill.
Well, likewise these presuppositions of centredness, controlled
discursive "landings", prefab concentrated relevancies, and
semantic sure-things are all mills for some other grist. We are now in the
mill of dogma. It's getting tedious for you, and others too perhaps: time
to bring in shut-down rhetoric.
I guess my posture is Hamlet's : "There are more things in the universe
than dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio" (sic?)
And thus do I brood.
And more literary support. American poet, Wallace Stevens.
from "The Man with the Blue Guitar"
"...They said, 'You have a blue guitar,
You do not play things as they are.'
The man replied, 'Things as they are
Are changed upon the blue guitar.'
And they said then, 'But play, you must,
A tune beyond us, yet ourselves,
A tune upon the blue guitar
Of things exactly as they are.'"
Thus, I twang it out, and leave it there.
Bob Ashley
Greg Gammill
>
>
>Does anybody else think that Bob Ashley is secretly the character
>"Wilson" from the TV show Home Improvement?
>
>Tim
AYE!! ;o)
Tom Poore
> Regardless of all the other factors that go into learning guitar
> technique, how can we "get beyond" the necessity for persistence?
> Can anyone learn to play the guitar by giving up whenever something
> gets difficult?
Bob Ashley wrote:
> We are getting "beyond" it right now, simply by continuing the
> conversation, tuning our definitions, cross-examining our assump-
> tions. At the start of this thread we have stark definitions, over-
> simplified edicts, and so forth, but now the term "persistence" is
> being qualified, focused, and traded upon in a new way. We "get
> beyond" the necessity of persistence perhaps by seeing it from
> other angles.
You haven't gone beyond the necessity of persistence. You've shifted the
focus to another consideration. You can't go beyond the necessity of
persistence any more than you can go beyond the necessity of practice.
Bob Ashley:
> For instance, we could lay down the whole intrepid Rocky-like air
> that persistence has about it by saying that achievement on the
> guitar entails "submission". In other words we "submit" or
> "surrender" to the requisite regime, and through this surrender
> we achieve mastery.
...and:
> We "give ourselves" over to practice, we "submit" to something
> larger than ourselves. Instead of agent, we become patient. To my
> mind, an attitudinal shift must occur between the calling for
> persistence and the calling for submission.
"Submission" and "surrender" aren't entirely apt descriptions of a
productive attitude toward learning. They imply a passive mindset, and a
passive mindset is hardly conducive to learning.
I wrote:
> There's a difference between unproductive persistence and
> productive persistence. Persistence without intelligence is a
> dead end. No one who has posted on this thread has said otherwise.
Bob Ashley wrote:
> You see here, Tom, is a fine example of what I was talking about
> earlier, about the conversation adding nuance and texture to the
> meanings we try to convey. You've introduced something brand
> new here with the proposal that there are different "species" of per-
> sistence, an idea that hitherto lay dormant. Additionally, one species
> possesses intelligence, and I presume the other species must be stupid.
I haven't introduced anything new. Here are excerpts from my earlier
posts on this subject:
Part of the purpose of my post was to show that great
players aren't necessarily more musically talented than
the rest of us. (Some of them are, of course, but I've also
met very musically gifted people who aren't great players.)
What they do have is the compacity for working intelligently
and consistently. Further, they demand high standards from
themselves, and they're willing to spend the time necessary
to reach those standards.
...and:
We tend to see great players as an alchemic miracle, and
often overlook more prosaic reasons why they're better
than the rest of us:
¥ they practice more
¥ they practice consistently
¥ they practice smarter
¥ they refuse to settle for mediocrity
I could give other examples. Clearly, I don't regard persistence alone
to be a magic bullet. (Incidently, I've been warned that quoting myself
betrays an overinflated ego. I'm not sure this is true, but just to be
safe, I'm avoiding needles.)
I wrote:
> We learn best by doing. Those who sit in the mud and demand
> answers to every imaginable contingency will never get started.
> Better are those who move forward, confident that either they or
> their mentors will be able to solve any problem they encounter
> along the way.
Bob Ashley wrote:
> The implications of your last paragraph are transparent enough: I
> take it that I am one of those you describe as one "who sit in the
> mud...demand answers...never get started." Sulking. Demanding.
> Petty. Indolent. I take no offense to this loaded remark as it seems
> to me you are doing your rhetorical best to get your point across.
> You are "persisting".
Admittedly, my "sitting in the mud" characterization isn't polite. But
it's apt. Consider the following excerpt from a post of yours. To allow
this lengthy excerpt its full effect, I quote it in full:
> I tried visualizing the first few bars of "Quadrivial Quandary" a study
> by Andrew York published in Tennant's Pumping Nylon. Let's inter-
> rogate what happened as I persisted.
> Visualization problems:
> 1) Which vantage? As if disembodied and watching oneself? Overhead
> view, looking down on hands? One hand? Two hands? How does one get
> the right view in one's mind and hold it. Should we hold it?
> 2) The view is not photographic. The view is the work of imagination
> and mind, for our brains cannot see but for our eyes. Is this seeing?
> 3) Can I hear this view? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
> 4) Do I visualize the abstraction of rhythm? Do I do this
> simultaneously as I "see" my hands. What does the duration
> of a quarter-note look like?
> 5) What about the musical notation? Do I somehow work an image of
> this into my cranial collage of images. There were moments as I
> remember seeing the notes on the page in my visualization process.
> Sometimes they blended with (bled into?) images of my fingers
> pumping.
> 6) Who but Buddha could perform this technique and not lose the
> image to some other thought, e.g. a Cindy Crawford thigh, a big
> cheeseburger, that letter from the ex's lawyer, the dog goober on
> the deck. Don't make me laugh by suggesting you or any other person
> here can do visualization with no breakdowns. Something else is
> operative, but what?
> 7) How many dimensions does this inner-seeing possess. Two?
> Three? None?
> 8) Zoom in? Zoom out? Dissolve to head and shoulder. Cross-cut
> to close-up of left hand finger pads quivering over the frets. Camera
> work. Special effects? Who or what is in charge of production?
> 9) Colour? Black and White? Freeze-frame? Stills? Sketch?
> Photo? Relief?
> 10) Are we simultaneously directing ourselves forward as we watch
> ourselves? Is there an inner dialogue between agent and co-agent?
> Overseer and player? Blindman and Seer?
> 11) Which human mind is as simple as a projection screen on which
> one can watch oneself doing something before they do it, and while
> they do it.
> 12) Does one see the 'totality' of the few bars selected, or is the
> vision temporal? If the vision is temporal, how does it know when
> to stop except that it knows the totality?
> 13) Which part of the brain locates the target string and fret, places
> the finger, and does all the rest of that jazz while another part
> watches?
> 14) Is there any linguistic activity during the visualization process?
> "Come on, you can do it...Shit!...missed...can't you see where you're
> going?'
> 15) How detailed is the visualized image? Shadows and shapes? Lines
> and colours? Shades and modelling?
> 16) Why can't I remember what I see until I see it over and over and
> over and over and over again. Yet, when I use my eyes I know that the
> orange juice is right behind the milk in the fridge.
> 17) Why in order to visualize I close my eyes? Essentially visualiza-
> tion is a form "blindness", or we might say that "blindness" is a
> requisite of "inner seeing".
Is this really how you approach your practice sessions with the guitar?
If so, it's incredible that you can play the guitar at all. Indeed, you
sound suspiciously like someone who's looking for reasons not to
advance. For example, consider point number 9:
Colour? Black and White? Freeze-frame?
Stills? Sketch? Photo? Relief?
Do you seriously believe these to be important questions? To me, they
sound willfully obtuse. You're throwing piles of semantic nitpicking
into your own path, and then surveying the wreckage and saying "See, I
knew it was impossible to go this way."
But if you really believe these to be important questions, then by all
means get cracking. With enough time and thoughtful examination, you
could answer all of them to your satisfaction.
Just be submissive.
(Hmm. Doesn't sound right, does it?)
Brent Douglas
Bob Ashley wrote:
>
>
> I tried visualizing the first few bars of "Quadrivial Quandary" a study by
> Andrew York published in Tennant's _Pumping Nylon_. Let's interrogate what
> happened as I persisted.
>
> Visualization problems:
>
> 1) Which vantage? As if disembodied and watching oneself? Overhead view,
> looking down on hands? One hand? Two hands? How does one get the right
> view in one's mind and hold it. Should we hold it?
>
>
>
> 17) Why in order to visualize I close my eyes? Essentially visualization
> is a form "blindness", or we might say that "blindness" is a requisite of
> "inner seeing".
>
>
pardon me, but in the time it took you to type all of that...you could have
had the whole piece memorized.:-)
Bob Ashley
: Does anybody else think that Bob Ashley is secretly the character
: "Wilson" from the TV show Home Improvement?
: Tim
Tim, what are you doing?! You know I can't show my face in public!
Exposed,
Bob Wil..Imean Ashley
Lutemann
writes:
>I tried visualizing the first few bars of "Quadrivial Quandary" a study by
>"inner seeing". Etc., etc.
You are making this more difficult than it actually is. You really need a
teacher. BTW, I'm looking for a online student. Perhaps someone who has
microsoft conference, and lives hundreds of miles from any teacher.
Kent
Lutemann
writes:
>ike best is that visualization is a "set-up" of pre-execution.
>Importantly, your technique demands that one be "sure of where everything
>goes" and only then does one proceed to an intensely concentrated
>execution with fingers and mind. This "being sure" I reckon is the
>ridgepole of the whole method and if so, then the technique is probably
>more properly referred as something like "critical self-reflexive
>practice".
>
>I'm going to have to start "doing it", though, instead just blabbering
>about it.
>
>Regards,
Bob,
Learn to play the piece from the music, of course. You need to start grooving
in tactile memory first. Once you can play piece well from the music you can
start memorizing it off the guitar. When you get done you should be able to
see (mainly the left hand) and hear yourself play the piece from beginning to
end. You will find that even when learned this way you must practice the
visual memory from time to time.
Kent
Bob Ashley
Distribution:
Tom Poore (t...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
<lots and lots of snipping>
Bob wrote:
General comment on that snipped: Thanks for your meticulously well-wrought
repost to my attempts to embarrass the concepts of persistence and
visualization. You make many strong points, some of which I would accede
to. Inadvertantly or otherwise you and I seem trapped in this dialectical
maze that always spills us out in philosophy's backyard.
<snip>
Tom wrote:
: Is this really how you approach your practice sessions with the guitar?
: If so, it's incredible that you can play the guitar at all. Indeed, you
: sound suspiciously like someone who's looking for reasons not to
: advance. For example, consider point number 9:
: Colour? Black and White? Freeze-frame?
: Stills? Sketch? Photo? Relief?
You of all people, Tom! Tsk,tsk. Ad hominen, my goodness. And yet,here's
the
nonsense that roots ad hominen; although you attempt to dismantle this, my
last argument, not by engaging its reasons but instead by caracaturing me
as a wilful instigator. Nevertheless, blind faith in ad hominen would have
prevented you from sniffing at motives which well may be fabricating the
simulacrum of argument. You missed gettting the name for the motive, but
your intuition led you to place the commandments of logic would never
find. Mine is not a simulated argument, nor an expression of someone
"looking for reasons not to advance".
I'm sure, though, had you tried the next door, you would have found me
wilfully trying to counteract what I'd call "semantic complacency", doing
so using the rhetoric of hyperbole and overstatement and repetition.
Hence, in terms of motive detection you were definitely gaining some
ground on me. On closer inspection, however, you will eventually find that
I am sincerre troubled by my music, my blunted technique, and yes, my
inability to persist. My queries are plaints, real questions. I'm not so
naive not to realize there are no absolute answers. On the other hand,
some of the prescriptions for advancement in this newsgroups seem shopworn
and overtired. The very concept of "persistence" wearies me because I feel
the weight of what I see as a dogmatic, unyielding ideology.
My questions, the ones you claim are evidence of purposeful subversion,
are not that. I think a full description of the visualization process, for
example, something that attempts to render a vivid, concrete account of
the experience would be engaging and useful.
<snip>
Tom wrote:
: Do you seriously believe these to be important questions? To me, they
: sound willfully obtuse. You're throwing piles of semantic nitpicking
: into your own path, and then surveying the wreckage and saying "See, I
: knew it was impossible to go this way."
We must nitpick semantics, lest we descend to war for wont of mutual
understanding. We no longer live in a world supported by pat definitions,
neutral concepts, universal meaning. Go to any newsgroup. There you will
find a continuum of violence ranging from semantic skirmishes all the way
to wars of jingoistic nationalists. The ground we all struggle to control
is meaning....semantics. Not to nitpick is to delude oneself into thinking
we can arrive at pure, communicable meaning. Semantic slippage is
everywhere; it's the natural of language to ambiguous, otherwise we need a
complete, new, unique lexicon for every single situation that arises where
we need words. Fortunately we can confront infinite discursive
possibilities and situations with a remarkably small set of words. The
price we pay, however, is frequent misunderstandings.
The drama you've composed above is sneaky. You've given me a cardboard
outline, lines to say, and attributed to me, this Falstaffian buffoon his
own
self-defeating, nonsensical motives. I realize this kind of this happens
now and then, especially when we so much want to make our point
understood. But, the caricature is drawn not to follow my likeness but to
promote your interests. You've cut across my proprieties and given my
discussion a flat diagnosis of motives.
Understandable. I call on that rhetoric myself
often enough. Next time, though, give me more flesh and an adult, not
child's stature! (grin) As an aside to assist your future sketches, you
should know that I have an unusually small mouth, so small, I eat my
cereal with a dessert spoon. It's something in the order of a
"rosebud"...delicate, fragrant, tiny, fragile.
<snip>
: But if you really believe these to be important questions, then by all
: means get cracking. With enough time and thoughtful examination, you
: could answer all of them to your satisfaction.
Well, I don't know about "important". Maybe mine are stupid questions, but
I'm not really sure, one way or the other. On the other hand, I don't
think I deserve banishment or derision for wanting to dwell on some of
terms we invoke. I don't trust the bandying of terms around especially
when the setting seems overcome by that air of "savoir faire" and
complacency. We might also say there is persistence, but persistence in
some situtations is just an honorific term for "obstinacy".
It would be sad to think that the primary purpose of newgroup
"discussion" is merely to call things "good" or "bad", "intelligent" or
"stupid", "this or that" and being done with it. Things are either
eulogized or condemned with little or no interest expressed in "tracing"
processes like visualization and perserverence through all their important
metamorphoses.
Nice debating with you, though.
Regards,
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
Bob wrote
: >I'm going to have to start "doing it", though, instead just blabbering
: >about it.
: >
: Learn to play the piece from the music, of course. You need to start grooving
: in tactile memory first. Once you can play piece well from the music you can
: start memorizing it off the guitar. When you get done you should be able to
: see (mainly the left hand) and hear yourself play the piece from beginning to
: end. You will find that even when learned this way you must practice the
: visual memory from time to time.
Okay, this concept of "tactile memory" makes sense to me. My intuition
about visualization kept bringing back to this idea.
You must have read my questions (or you're a mind-reader), for you've
answered a couple, suggesting that the focus of visualization is mainly on
the left hand, AND hearing.
Now this "should be able to hear yourself play the piece from begininning
to end" is difficult for me to imagine. I don't discount the possiblity
but does seem to demand that all things have come together to form a
totalized, integrated structure which is both synchronic (total) and
diachronic (temporal movement).
I tried "visualizing" a few bars I already know, away from the guitar, and
you know, I think you could say that it's a way to "practice" without an
instrument! It's hard, hard. But I wonder...do you think even 5 mins a day
doing "instrumentless practice" might reap worthwhile benefits?
Thanks for these tips, moreso because as I've said before, this whole
memorization thing probably bugs me more that all my other CG woes
combined. If I could get even 90 minutes down pat, I'd be off in flash
sharing my music with the old folks, the church, the little Italian cafe,
maybe even the street! As it is, although I'm not a half-bad player, I'm
embarrassed for having a crutch -- sheet music. I'm a fast, fairly
accurate reader, but this skill pales in comparison to really knowing a
bunch of music by heart.
I really believe that this memorization skill, if I can master it, will
become the bridge that joins private and public. But 90 minutes....it's
gonna take 9000 hours! My goodness.
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
: pardon me, but in the time it took you to type all of that...you could have
: had the whole piece memorized.:-)
Whose to pardon? Your right. The plains of my obliviousness stretch as far
as my eyes can see.
Bob Ashley
Bob Ashley
: In article <6q7fca$n1t$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, ax...@chebucto.ns.ca (Bob Ashley)
: writes:
: >I tried visualizing the first few bars of "Quadrivial Quandary" a study by
: >Andrew York published in Tennant's _Pumping Nylon_. Let's interrogate what
: >happened as I persisted.
: >
: >Visualization problems:
: You are making this more difficult than it actually is. You really need a
: teacher. BTW, I'm looking for a online student. Perhaps someone who has
: microsoft conference, and lives hundreds of miles from any teacher.
: Kent
You're probably right about making things harder than they need be. Then
again, this is my way: full court press on the terminology, followed by
mind-numbing interrogation of same. Once I spend myself, I contract my
sphere of confusion, usually settling on this or that main idea. It just
so happens that I went through this process publicly instead of privately.
The advantage of this banshee-style raid on learning, to my way of
thinking, is that I usually come across a tidbit, diamond, lost arrowhead,
that helps the learning. After that, I go Tonka. Plod. Shovel. Dig. Plod
Shovel Dig. After the Banshees raid the enemy village, they plant the
corn. War, then agriculture. My learning is simply a microcosmic analogy
to this metaphor. Hence, although you may be right about my needing a
teacher, your diagnosis is based but on only the early symptoms of the
pathology, the "War Phase".
It works. I'm a mature student at SMU (Saint Mary's Universtiy); I just
got
awarded a scholarship as the university's top academic achiever. I'm a
good learner, but often people object to my pestering curiosity, rightly
so, I guess.
I'd volunteer for the on-line student experiment but I don't qualify: live
near teachers; no "conference" (Mac person).
Can you give us a run-down on what this project is about? Sounds
intriguing.
Bob Ashley
Jim String
>
>I really believe that this memorization skill, if I can master it, will
>become the bridge that joins private and public. But 90 minutes....it's
>gonna take 9000 hours! My goodness.
Seems I don't really spend that much time practicing anymore since
technique in and of itself is mastered at this point. I really haven't
seen anything that I _can't_ do for quite some time. Perhaps some
discussion of how different people approach large scale memorizations
would be useful. How would the teachers out there suggest memorizing
the Chaconne, for instance?
I've been memorizing BWV 1000 for a couple of weeks now and I've got
about 2 1/2 pages memorized out of 6 pages. In general I think I'm doing
pretty well since the first two pages are the most difficult. The rest
of the piece has its tough spots but it seems to me that most of the
contrapuntal care must be taken with the first two pages.
Am I really attempting to memorize this fugue? I wonder. Perhaps I am
using the wrong word and "memorization" isn't really appropriate. Seems I
mostly spend my time exploring different fingerings, experimenting with
exactly which string a note sounds best on, comparing fingerings with
the rhythmic motifs and how to best sustain or damp notes. Maybe the
memorization I have achieved is simply incidental to my study of the
piece. There are certain phrasing considerations that become apparent
after certain strings of measures become familiar and then I'm forced
to reconsider some fingerings in favor of what I've discovered about
the phrasing. I'm using Jerry Willard's scores but I can't just use his
fingerings religiously, after all, all those little numbers represent
_his_ hands and _his_ thought about how things oughta work.
So I sort of question memorization techniques. If someone were to apply
a brute force memorization formula to this fugue I wonder what the
results would be and if it would be satifactory. On the other hand,
there's quite a bit of stuff I can just play off the paper but would
like to have memorized, let's say about half of the the 20 Segovia Sor
studies. I'd love a "pill" formula for getting stuff like this memorized.
I play them well off the paper but I'm sure I'd be at least 20% better
if it was in my head.
Wasn't it Clara Schumann who pissed off the establishment at the time
by playing her husband's and others' compositions from memory? Something
about it was considered disrespectful to attempt an interpretation
without the composer's notes in front of you? That was piano though,
and I'd say guitar and lute are quite different situations. We have
to memorize and get criticized for being poor sight-readers anyway.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>
>You are making this more difficult than it actually is. You really need a
>teacher. BTW, I'm looking for a online student. Perhaps someone who has
>microsoft conference, and lives hundreds of miles from any teacher.
Fascinating concept, Kent. I've put together a couple of realaudio
servers and realtime chat is a snap with even the old unix "talk"
program. I've toyed with the idea of performing on the Internet
periodicly utlilizing unicast and mbone multicast stuff because I
think unicast could easily overwhelm a T1 with more than a few
listeners. I usually disregard Microsoft's alleged "technologies"
since they tend to be seriously behind the state of the art and
introduce artificial limitations anyway. I'm really interested in
a "mud" sort of situation where players with a sound card and a
microphone could enter a room and perform, even from a modem dialup.
The player would unicast to the mud server and the server could
multicast out to the listeners on the networks that can handle it,
unicasting elsewhere.
Imagine a mud with dozens of rooms, some concert halls and some
just practice rooms where people could regularly practice with
interested parties dropping in to listen. Bulletin boards for
various topics and even (*gasp*) ensemble rooms. Probably not
possible on today's 'net with the packet latencies and such.
Damn, I wish someone would pay me to develop something like this.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>I wrote:
>
>> Regardless of all the other factors that go into learning guitar
>> technique, how can we "get beyond" the necessity for persistence?
>> Can anyone learn to play the guitar by giving up whenever something
>> gets difficult?
For me, life itself would be intolerable without guitar. It has
become so much a part of me that I think "persistence" is an irrelevant
concept. Guitar (and Bach) is just something that I do. So many things in
life are so inconsistent, illusory and transitory that the only thing I
can identify in my life as "permanent" is "my" music and the guitar. As
I look at the last 17 years the only thing that has been consistent is
my guitar. I have these horrible nightmares at times where my instrument
is damaged or destroyed. I sincerely hope that this isn't common among
other players because it really sucks to wake up drenched with sweat
and crying.
Best,
Jim
Tom Poore
> On closer inspection, however, you will eventually find
> that I am sincerely troubled by my music, my blunted tech-
> nique, and yes, my inability to persist. My queries are plaints,
> real questions. I'm not so naive not to realize there are no
> absolute answers. On the other hand, some of the prescrip-
> tions for advancement in this newsgroups seem shopworn
> and overtired. The very concept of "persistence" wearies me
> because I feel the weight of what I see as a dogmatic, unyield-
> ing ideology.
Since you've persistently questioned the concept of persistence, perhaps
I should describe my own understanding of the term:
In learning any complex skill, we inevitably encounter
obstacles. Persistence is the ability to face them with opti-
mism. Rather than surrender to despair, we have faith that
we can learn from obstacles and eventually overcome them.
Persistence allows us to stick with a potentially productive
way of doing things, even if it doesn't yield immediate bene-
fits. Within reason, even persistence in a bad idea can yield
good information--it exposes a bad idea for what it is, because
we've persisted with it long enough to find that it has little or
no merit.
Persistence leads us to find good information that less per-
sistent people never find. Persistence encourages us to find
creative solutions to seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
Quitting is the epitome of uncreative solutions.
Ultimately, persistence rewards us with a range and depth
of experience unattainable by those who quit.
> We must nitpick semantics, lest we descend to war for wont
> of mutual understanding. We no longer live in a world sup-
> ported by pat definitions, neutral concepts, universal meaning.
> Go to any newsgroup. There you will find a continuum of vio-
> lence ranging from semantic skirmishes all the way to wars of
> jingoistic nationalists. The ground we all struggle to control is
> meaning....semantics. Not to nitpick is to delude oneself into
> thinking we can arrive at pure, communicable meaning. Seman-
> tic slippage is everywhere; it's the natural of language to am-
> biguous, otherwise we need a complete, new, unique lexicon for
> every single situation that arises where we need words. For-
> tunately we can confront infinite discursive possibilities and
> situations with a remarkably small set of words. The price we
> pay, however, is frequent misunderstandings.
Bob, I say this in all sincerity. You must decide what's more important
to you: defining semantics or improving your ability to play the guitar.
You're demanding a linguistic precision that doesn't exist. Further,
you're asking for precise and painstakingly thorough descriptions of
ineffable things. You're unlikely to find such descriptions.
I and others on this newsgroup have written with reasonable clarity on
how one can improve. There are also many fine books and videos on guitar
playing. Rather than deconstructing the information you're getting, you
need to apply it.
Lutemann
writes:
>I tried "visualizing" a few bars I already know, away from the guitar, and
>you know, I think you could say that it's a way to "practice" without an
>instrument! It's hard, hard. But I wonder...do you think even 5 mins a day
>doing "instrumentless practice" might reap worthwhile benefits?
When I was seriously performing for money, I used to do about 10-20% of my
practice off the the guitar. I was always learning new pieces and keeping up
the old. I would never play one of my old pieces (in practice sessions)
without first playing it off the guitar. If stumbled with visual part I'd go
back to the music and put it back in my head.
My susupicion is that you are trying a piece that is too difficult. You must
train yourself with scales. Remeber the Eb scale? Can you say that through
with a metronome? That's a good start.
Kent
Lutemann
(Jim String) writes:
>So I sort of question memorization techniques. If someone were to apply
>a brute force memorization formula to this fugue I wonder what the
>results would be and if it would be satifactory.
The results would be 1/2 to 1 page per day.
Kent
hogr...@inreach.com
new Amelio Burguet A1. Shortly after getting it I had a dream there I came
home and my house was completely under water. My only comment when seeing it
was, My new guitar is in there, will the water ruin it. My only concern was
my guitars. Of course I live on a hill 30' above lake level so the whole
dream was crazy but in the dream it seemed real enough to wake me up. Doug
Bob Ashley
: In article <6q91n1$rtq$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, Bob Ashley wrote:
: >
: >I really believe that this memorization skill, if I can master it, will
: >become the bridge that joins private and public. But 90 minutes....it's
: >gonna take 9000 hours! My goodness.
: Seems I don't really spend that much time practicing anymore since
: technique in and of itself is mastered at this point. I really haven't
: seen anything that I _can't_ do for quite some time. Perhaps some
: discussion of how different people approach large scale memorizations
: would be useful. How would the teachers out there suggest memorizing
: the Chaconne, for instance?
Your post shows that even advanced players like yourself can feel
bewildered sometimes about what to do and how to do it. At bottom, I guess
you're pretty much on your own, but hopefully your musical education
equips you with the stuff to make sound, critical decisions. The rest of
your post seem to illustrate how an advanced player works through the
problems such as that which you pose in this first paragraph.
<snippage>
: Am I really attempting to memorize this fugue? I wonder. Perhaps I am
: using the wrong word and "memorization" isn't really appropriate. Seems I
: mostly spend my time exploring different fingerings, experimenting with
: exactly which string a note sounds best on, comparing fingerings with
: the rhythmic motifs and how to best sustain or damp notes. Maybe the
: memorization I have achieved is simply incidental to my study of the
: piece.
Yes, these are athletic observations. Your suspicions about what you're
really doing seem well-placed. As you describe it, I would call what
you're doing "assimilation", a term somewhat broader and more inclusive
than "memorization". "Memorization" is word that, unfortunately, carries a
tone of "rote", mechanical learning. Another riskier concept for what you
are doing is an "archeology of music". You begin with the "material
remains" on the surface of things, you start trying to put various pieces
together, and soon enough (or none too soon!) you've "reconstructed" a
total picture from the originally buried, scattered parts.
: There are certain phrasing considerations that become apparent
: after certain strings of measures become familiar and then I'm forced
: to reconsider some fingerings in favor of what I've discovered about
: the phrasing. I'm using Jerry Willard's scores but I can't just use his
: fingerings religiously, after all, all those little numbers represent
: _his_ hands and _his_ thought about how things oughta work.
This part intrigues me for what you've done to my way of thinking is to
ascribe another's signature to a work's interpretation, seemingly for the
purpose of finding your own unique way to "possess" the music. This is
something of what I had in mind in speaking about the "art of learning",
especially contra "the methods of learning". This anecdote really
foregrounds an intensely sensitive and individual intimacy with one's
instrument and the music it makes.
: So I sort of question memorization techniques. If someone were to apply
: a brute force memorization formula to this fugue I wonder what the
: results would be and if it would be satifactory. On the other hand,
: there's quite a bit of stuff I can just play off the paper but would
: like to have memorized, let's say about half of the the 20 Segovia Sor
: studies. I'd love a "pill" formula for getting stuff like this memorized.
: I play them well off the paper but I'm sure I'd be at least 20% better
: if it was in my head.
Another example of the self-reflexive musician pacing himself through
critical questionings. Indeed, what about this violence of brute force
memorization you may have found. You may have a strong point here; I'd
call my own approach to memory "brutal inscription" on closer examination.
Bob Ashley
Jim String
>In article <slrn6sdctr....@molly.hh.org>,
> pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>> In article <6q62ct$i8p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jrs...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You're right, Kent. It almost makes me want to come in
>> >out of the cold ("It's very cooooold in spaaaace." - Kann).
>>
>> Ah, I just _knew_ you weren't wearing red...
>
>
>I must correct myself: it's "Khan" not "Kann" (which is how
>"Khan" is pronounced by someone from Louisiana :)
>
>Red? I don't know what you mean.
In STOG if an actor was wearing a red tunic there was a good chance
he would be killed off during the episode.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>In article <slrn6sgc5f....@molly.hh.org>, pla...@not.replyable.com
>(Jim String) writes:
>
>>a brute force memorization formula to this fugue I wonder what the
>>results would be and if it would be satifactory.
>
OK. I'm sure that sounds reasonable if all I was after with this fugue
was to simply get it memorized. However, I want to _understand_ it, grok
in fullness, relishing the best possible production of each note and
explore the variations of fingerings, counting rhythms carefully. Surely
this is a valid approach too, with benefits? I'm sure I'll have it memorized
completely in time, probably at the exact moment when it's appropriate
for me to begin playing it entirely from memory. Then in another month
or two I might feel ready to perform it. After performing it for some time
I might start to approach the point where I could think about recording
it. This has always seemed to be the natural progression.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>
>Another example of the self-reflexive musician pacing himself through
>critical questionings. Indeed, what about this violence of brute force
>memorization you may have found. You may have a strong point here; I'd
>call my own approach to memory "brutal inscription" on closer examination.
I like that phrase, "violence of brute force memorization." Although I've
committed the Chaconne to memory finally (a few months ago) I've been
playing it off the paper for several years. I finally made the decision
to make it stick in my memory but I would have never attempted to memorize
the piece when I first started exploring it. There was just too much to
learn about it to ever consider locking myself into memory. Even now that
I can play it from memory I still like to use the score about half the
time.
Regarding the BWV 100 fugue, I'm now up to three whole pages memorized
through no real effort from two pages a day or so ago. That next phrase
just sort of clicked in and started sounding really good.
Best,
Jim
julian Lewis
Sigh,
if only it was as easy as you make out, I parctice at least 1Hr a day and
often much more, and Im still useless. What I need isnt a pill. The fact is
I have no talent, but unlimited determination, if I want to play, then maybe
one day I might get there. If somone can make my time studying more
efficient Im all ears...
Julian
Charlie
Julian,
1. Play what you like, how you like, when you like, where you like.
You have all the time in the world - what's your rush? Who set up
your ideal for you? Listen to your own head / heart.
2. Give you self a break - cut yourself some slack. There is no right
or wrong unless you choose there to be.
:-)
Charlie
Bob Ashley
: When I was seriously performing for money, I used to do about 10-20% of my
: practice off the the guitar. I was always learning new pieces and keeping up
: the old. I would never play one of my old pieces (in practice sessions)
: without first playing it off the guitar. If stumbled with visual part I'd go
: back to the music and put it back in my head.
This narrative is compelling, almost to the point mesmerizing. Why? The
intensity, sustain, and scope of the concentration powers you describe are
simply not in the common intellectual inventories of most people. Most
people can easily rehearse their inabilities along these lines:"I can
never remember a name";"what's my zip? phone number?, bank card number?";
"where are my keys?"; and so on.
Thinking carefully about it, we have a way to say the following statement
is quite remarkable, and indeed, rare, if true: "If [I] stumbled with
visual part I'd go back to the music and put it back in my head." This
statement is remarkable for the "mechanical" efficacy it describes, the
sheer ease it implies, and its casual matter-of-factness about a mental
phenomenon which is arguably not in common currency. Fact is more
likely that either through a powerful native talent or through rigorous
training, or most likely, both you're now in possession of a remarkable
skill. I daresay that were this skill in common currency, any old goat
could breeze through the professional schools or been seen at theatres
mouthing the words to Act IV, Scene II, the 45th line in Polonius's speech
to Horatio. More likely, people (maybe some right here) are thinking, "Is
he talking about Hamlet?, that play by...um...Jonson...no, no,
Shakespeare! Now let's see, where was I? Um, forgot.
Now you may rebut, as you have previously, that this stuff isn't all that
hard. Let me pre-empt that anticipated rebuttal with the assertion that
most people cannot, or only rarely apply techniques such as you describe,
and for mighty good reasons. They're hard to master, you need
"perserverance"(pace Tom Poore), and probably a good measure of native
talent too. Moreover, I'd wager that to the question, "How much time do
you regularly put into practicing guitar....without the guitar?" we'd find
but a handful among legions who even get beyond the perplexity of the
question, let alone an affirm of the technique, let alone on a
regular basis, let alone do it with such effortless confidence.
: My susupicion is that you are trying a piece that is too difficult. You must
: train yourself with scales. Remeber the Eb scale? Can you say that through
: with a metronome? That's a good start.
No, the piece is well within my grasp technically; I can sight read that
which I am trying to visualize without problems. It's the technique of
visualization which is rather "too difficult" and yet may still demand
your solution of working with scales, something with may be better suited
to early attempts at visualization. Perhaps, in order to develop the
technique of visualization in order to use the technique to develop one's
musical memory, one needs to "rudimentarize" the visualized object.
I think this is what you're getting at with teh suggestion to go back to
the "start" with the Eb scale.
But what
do you think about trying to visualize just "open" strings, something even
more basic that your Eb scale. The possible trouble with the Eb scale is
that the intellectual exertion of grabbing the "right" note names on the
"right" beat interferes with the actual "looking" at what you're doing in
your mind's eye(s). In other words, I am questioning whether the focus of
the exercise is diffused or divided between different mental faculties.
I'm no cognitive psychologist, so I don't know.
I really have to believe the technique of visualization works, for you
yourself are its best evidence. And I have managed to assimilate some
small snatches of music myself, along with a kind of ambiguous confidence
in what I've remembered because I can "see" it. But I would hesitate to
conclude that learning how to visualize is any easier than learning how to
play the guitar. And we all know how hard the latter is. So why should we
be tempted to trivialize the difficulty of the former?
As the song goes, "Don't know much about history..."
Bob Ashley
MKelly1270
i have been playing the cg for the last 10 months and have been able to
play pieces in my head without much effort. i don't think this is as
difficult as you say. granted the pieces that i play in my head and on the
guitar are easy.
but my definition of "play in my head" is a little differt then the
visulization described earlier in this thread. i don't see my hands or hear
the music too well but i do have a memory of what my hands are playing. so i
can remeber in detail how it feels to play the piece away from the guitar.
i have had alot of experience using this kind of mental practice with
sports and i believe that it is helping me improve at the cg too. so maybe you
can learn to practice the cg mentaly without actualy seeing your hands :)
any thought ???
mike
Lutemann
writes:
>"If [I] stumbled with
>visual part I'd go back to the music and put it back in my head." This
>statement is remarkable for the "mechanical" efficacy it describes, the
>sheer ease it implies, and its casual matter-of-factness about a mental
>phenomenon which is arguably not in common currency. Fact is more
>likely that either through a powerful native talent or through rigorous
>training, or most likely, both you're now in possession of a remarkable
>skill. I daresay that were this skill in common currency, any old goat
>could breeze through the professional schools or been seen at theatres
This is nonsense. What people lack is a good teacher. My wife can do this on
the guitar and the piano. Almost all of Shearer's students learn this
technique. If you want to see a real good memory, watch the actors on soap
operas.
Kent Murdick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for a free catalog...
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html
NEW MUSIC! "Four More Latin American Pieces"
Free guitar music:
http://olympus.asms.state.k12.al.us/faculty/murdick/music.html
Lutemann
mkell...@aol.com (MKelly1270) writes:
> but my definition of "play in my head" is a little differt then the
>visulization described earlier in this thread. i don't see my hands or hear
>the music too well but i do have a memory of what my hands are playing. so i
>can remeber in detail how it feels to play the piece away from the guitar.
>
Here's a test I used to give to my college students. I'd have them play a
piece from memory, stop them in the middle at some awkward point, and then have
them start up again five measures ahead. If they could do that, they could
visualize.
Bob Ashley
: >visual part I'd go back to the music and put it back in my head." This
: >statement is remarkable for the "mechanical" efficacy it describes, the
: >sheer ease it implies, and its casual matter-of-factness about a mental
: >phenomenon which is arguably not in common currency. Fact is more
: >likely that either through a powerful native talent or through rigorous
: >training, or most likely, both you're now in possession of a remarkable
: >skill. I daresay that were this skill in common currency, any old goat
: >could breeze through the professional schools or been seen at theatres
: This is nonsense. What people lack is a good teacher. My wife can do this on
: the guitar and the piano. Almost all of Shearer's students learn this
: technique. If you want to see a real good memory, watch the actors on soap
: operas.
: Kent Murdick
"What people lack is a good teacher". This statement is highly
reductionist and hardly the universal cure-all. There are simply too many
hoardes of counter-examples that fly in the face of this simplistic
prescription. For one, we could speak of the archetypal and most
paradigmatic of all teachers, at least in the west, Jesus.
More or less, along the same lines, Jesus said: "What people lack is a
good teacher; follow me, I am the way". A moral of this tragic tale of
"teaching" is that only a very select few ever learn the lessons; the rest
of us go on bungling our way through. In fact, as we did in Jesus's case,
we regard the teacher as a menace to society.
The retort "This is nonsense" may be justified in the case of this select
few I'm referring. In fact, your example of soap actors may be such a
case, however, it is my understanding that tele-prompters play as much of,
or more of role in line recitation than memory. But even if these actors
did rely strictly on memory, I'd counter that memory was one of th
specialized tools of this particular trade. Again, a small minority.
The conflict here, to my way of thinking, has to with how wide the scope
of visualization should, or should not be. It seems to me that your
conception of the term is narrower than mine. Yours seeks its specified,
utilitarian target, while mine wonders what the implications are on a
wider, more diffuse level. Hence, I doubt we're even really talking about
the same thing a good part of the time.
We have to make allowances for one's "approach" to a concept like
"visualization", and try to tolerate others. We get nowhere unless we are
prepared to suspend our views, and in the moment of suspension, try on the
views of others. I apologize for the "preachy" sound of that last
sentence. What I'm getting at is that, yes, I can see clearly a way to
find application for your particular view of the visualization/memory
process, but expanding your particular view to a status of universal
authority is risky and unadvisable. Finally, we have to remember that you
speak for the simple view of visualization from a highly partisan camp.
We must always reserve assent in cases where the proponent of a certain
solution to a certain problem just happens also to be that solution. It's
called overdeterminism. For instance, historians place historicisms at the
centre of explanations for human behavior. Historians predictably say,
"What people need is a good historian." And who do you think most
vociferously propose physics as the most basic of sciences?" Hmmmm,
physicists? The list goes on and on and on.
And now we arrive: Teacher says: What people need is a good.....guess
what...? Hmmmm. This is not to say you are wrong. It is only to point out
the presence of a teacher's bias, unwitting or otherwise, in a statement
of advocacy naming a teacher as the sole and absolute solution to a
complex problem.
Overdeterminedly,
Bob Ashley
Jim String
>In article <199808140225...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>mkell...@aol.com (MKelly1270) writes:
>
>> but my definition of "play in my head" is a little differt then the
>>visulization described earlier in this thread. i don't see my hands or hear
>>the music too well but i do have a memory of what my hands are playing. so i
>>can remeber in detail how it feels to play the piece away from the guitar.
>>
>
>Here's a test I used to give to my college students. I'd have them play a
>piece from memory, stop them in the middle at some awkward point, and then have
>them start up again five measures ahead. If they could do that, they could
>visualize.
Woo... tough one. I could do that with a few pieces I know very well and
spent much time on the score before memorizing it.
I also used to play chess with a buddy without using a board and pieces.
It worked, but damn it was hard. Sparing you the gory details of mental
chess, I observe that a lot of music I play is not with any particular
attention to the measures. I don't even count through a lot of it until
rhythm gets complex enough to demand it and my counting mnemonics often
have little to do with the actual 1, 2, 3 of the literal barring.
If you asked me to stop and jump five bars ahead or behind I think I
would often not be able to do it. Only on some few pieces.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>technique. If you want to see a real good memory, watch the actors on soap
>operas.
Eh? Can you explain this a bit? For one thing I haven't seen any soaps
lately and secondly I think I entirely missed your point.
Best,
Jim
JonLor Pro
>14 Aug 1998 18:41:42 GMT
>Message-ID: <199808141841...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>..If you want to see a real good memory, watch the actors on soap
>operas.
And the wrestling you see on "Wide World of Wrestling" is real.
JonLorPro@aol
Lutemann
(Jim String) writes:
>In article <199808141841...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Lutemann wrote:
>
>>technique. If you want to see a real good memory, watch the actors on
>soap
>>operas.
>
>Eh? Can you explain this a bit? For one thing I haven't seen any soaps
>lately and secondly I think I entirely missed your point.
>
>Best,
>Jim
I believe they memorize the entire script the day they shoot. My daughter, who
is an actress in more ways than one, can do this.
Kent
MKelly1270
>Here's a test I used to give to my college students. I'd have them play a
>piece from memory, stop them in the middle at some awkward point, and then
>have
>them start up again five measures ahead. If they could do that, they could
>visualize.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
well i took your test and failed. i couldn't count off the measures but when
my friend just said start or stop i could switch back and forth between
visulizing and playing the pieces that i have really memorized
as i said earlier
.>> but my definition of "play in my head" is a little differt then the
>>visulization described earlier in this thread. i don't see my hands or hear
>>the music too well but i do have a memory of what my hands are playing. so
>i
>>can remeber in detail how it feels to play the piece away from the guitar.
is this the same thing or do i need to actual see my hands in my minds eye???
i have always been interested in "visulization" and its aplications to
learning. in a few weeks i am going on a backpacking trip for a week and i am
planning on bringing some music to see if i can learn it w/o the guitar. any
suggestions on how to best do this???
thanks
mike
Lutemann
mkell...@aol.com (MKelly1270) writes:
>i have always been interested in "visulization" and its aplications to
>learning. in a few weeks i am going on a backpacking trip for a week and i
>am
>planning on bringing some music to see if i can learn it w/o the guitar. any
>suggestions on how to best do this???
>
Yes. 1) Make sure you can play the piece well from the music. 2) Use a visual
piece, i.e. a piece that has a lot of familiar chord forms. Perhaps a sor
etude.
Kent