NLP and learning Jazz guitar?
Mark
I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
NLP modelling to help learn jazz guitar. My question really came from
a point made in another thread "what do you really need to know" .
Where somebody said
At the risk of being overly metaphysical, the REAL STUFF
transcends "knowing". You can know every mode of every scale; you can
write dissertations on how to develop melodic material and you can
still sound like s**t. It's got more do with living music and living
your instrument, but that's not the whole thing either. If somebody
could write "it " down, that somebody would be a rich SOB, but it
hasn't happened yet. People can suggest one strategy or another, but
in the end all we can do is struggle with it on our own terms and hope
we prove to be worthy.
I think that NLP is the tool that would enable this and would make
learning Jazz guitar very much easier. I am currently looking to write
a book about modelleing the Moeller technique for drumming. But in the
future may also look in to doing the same for guitar
Regards,
Mark
Just a quick note i though i should add. NLP is a very broad subject
it is really a way of controlling your own brain and being aware of
how your brain works. Modelling in NLP is when you take a range of
acknowledged experts in a field and 'model' the processes they go
through when they are performing the task you have chosen to look at,
in this case jazz guitar. This includes what they are thinking about,
how they feel, etc. Then look for the things they all do, they may be
large things, but normally it is the more subtle things that make the
difference which of course are more difficult for the adverage student
to pick up.NLP modelling allows you to move from the phase of
unconsious incompetence to consious competence in the learning cycle.
It has been used in all kinds of area's from sport to speech theraypy
with amazing result. (this is a quick desciption and by no means
complete, if you are interested in NLP check out the following web
site http://www.neurosemantics.com/)
Nazodesu
<Ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
> and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
Okay I'll bite, what's NLP?
Bob Russell
mus...@adelphia.net wrote on 3/18/02 10:49 AM:
"Neuro-Linguistic Programming". Just click on the link in his post; you'll
quickly find yourself smack-dab in the middle of NLP heaven - or hell, I
guess, depending on your point of view. ;)
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Chris_S
involves though ...
Imho if you want metaphysical, just pick up a copy of Zen Guitar or
check it out of your local library.
Chris
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:49:44 GMT, Nazodesu <mus...@adelphia.net>
wrote:
Mark
posted. I am a guitarist/drummer who is interested in developing the
use of the NLP modelling techiques and musical education.
Regards,
Mark
Mark
thought it was interesting that somebody had said that if you could
find some way of working out/writing down the ellusive magic that
makes greats great then you maybe would be able to play more like a
great.
I'm not so much interested in the 'meta-physical' side of what happens
when you play but the thought processes you use when playing. The only
difference between a novice player and a advanced player imho is that
they have learnt through repetition/practice to be able to think
musically and developed the motor skills to allow then to then play
those thoughts/ideas on the guitar, essentially once you have
developed the ability to play jazz (for example) if you then learnt
the physical technique you could play it on any instrument as the
ideas/musical understanding of the lines you want to play is in your
head. So if there was a way by using such techniques as NLP modelling
you could learn what the acknowledged greats do that makes them
different from myself. If you could find this out understand it then
use it yourself then you may be able to approach there ability?
Regards,
Mark
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:39:06 GMT, b1ww...@pop6.sympatico.ca (Chris_S)
wrote:
Rick Benstock
hypnosis techniques of the late Milton Ericson and therapeutic techniques of
the late Virginia Satir. From there it evolved to the concept that
excellence in any field can be attained by "modeling" (i.e., copying) an
excellent practitioner's sequencing of eye movements, physical movements,
self-talk etc.until they became natural and unconscious for oneself. Then
supposedly one would develop into the same level of ability.
There is no evidence that this is how learning works. Also, it seems obvious
that two equally great jazz guitarists might sequence things very
differently.
Anyway, here's a cute story about Milton Ericson. When he was asked about
Bandler and Grinder, and how well they had "modeled" him in their work, he
replied "They think they have me in a nutshell. Welll....they may have the
shell, but they don't have the nut."
Rick
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c961c26...@news.freeserve.net...
Dale & Nancy
with, has found nothing unique to this form or learning or therapy. An
interesting concept.
Dale
"Rick Benstock" <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NBpl8.24611$P4.21...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Thom j.
"Nazodesu" <mus...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:180320020747010490%mus...@adelphia.net...
Thom j.
SW
Neuro-linguistic programming. Nothing to do with neuroscience,
linguistics or computers. A form of psychobabble.
Thom j.
Nazodesu
<thom_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And hoped they'd provide an illuminating answer? Me too.
Nazodesu
<s.w...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
I guess I should have said:
Explicitly what is NLP as regards this topic and newsgroup, Jazz
Guitar, learning jazz guitar, left hands, diminished scales or anything
of that variety. Please no street addresses of libraries that have
books that I can read to find out what the topic of conversation is.
Mark
I'll leave you all in peace.
Regards,
Mark
P.S don't take the bait this time
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:26:22 GMT, "Thom j." <thom_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ethan Young
order to be great? Sounds like a good idea...Hey, I think I'll patent that
phrase, "Good idea." That way no one else can use it unless they license it
from me...of course, I won't entitle it "good idea"....more like something
along the lines of "socially sound responsitivity based upon positive
brainchild feedback"...or SSRPBF for short. Patent pending.
Later,
Ethan Young
"winning the award for outstanding achievement in the field of excellence
since 1984"
Whoa...I had to get that outta my system...
"Rick Benstock" <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NBpl8.24611$P4.21...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ethan Young
No hard feelings...we're just bitter and ignorant...with that said, you'd
probably be better off asking a psychiatrist newsgroup, or a psychologist
(in person!)...jazz guitarists tend not double major in psychology, I guess.
Later,
Ethan
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c967a4...@news.freeserve.net...
skrohn
I think that NLP has some value, and I would not dismiss it as a
potentially valuable tool, I believe that it cannot really be applied
as you suggest.
>The only
> difference between a novice player and a advanced player imho is that
> they have learnt through repetition/practice to be able to think
> musically and developed the motor skills to allow then to then play
> those thoughts/ideas on the guitar
How would one model thinking musically without learning to think
musically. How could you possibly model another's thinking on
something that runs so deep.
You are best off learning to think musically by doing the work and
developing your ideas.
Shortcuts do not work !!
> So if there was a way by using such techniques as NLP modelling
> you could learn what the acknowledged greats do that makes them
> different from myself. If you could find this out understand it then
> use it yourself then you may be able to approach there ability?
To speak of such shortcuts and speak of learning what the
acknowledged greats do in the same paragraph IMO implies that
you have not come to realize the depth of understanding
that is required and has been achieved by advanced and ,in particular,
the great players.
This may be intuitive understanding, book learned understanding ...
but however it is acquired (easily for some, or through hard work) it is
many layers deep, and different for each player.
Tools like NLP or Hypnosis can be used to help you master your
mind towards applying yourself towards the work you must do.
They cannot replace the work.
I would recommend the books by Robert Fritz
"The Path of Least Resistance"
"Creating"
They were enlightening for me and I feel much a more truthful and
realistic approach towards the 'creative process' .
Scott
skrohn
just what we want to do here.
Let's belittle what people say so they don't
come back.
Great thread !
"Ethan Young" <(laissez_faire)@att.net> wrote in message
news:cZvl8.19624$Ex5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Bob Russell
mus...@adelphia.net wrote on 3/18/02 6:38 PM:
Once again, if you'll just click the link in Mark's post, you'll find a page
where you'll find tons of info, including a brief description of what NLP
is. Really not that much trouble. I did it, read a couple of articles and
(so far) no salesman has called, which is good because I'm not buying.
Kevin & Karen Coffey
Kevin Coffey
Display Name
I'm an NLP instructor/practitioner, and I teach Jazz guitar. Would love to
speak to you about it if you'd like.
Feel free to shoot me a note, or give a call.
Rob
Robert Schwartz
Life Coach, NLP
212.674.3598H 646.932.2579M
Inquire about Complimentary Introductory Session
www.todaycoach.com
Joey Goldstein
Mark wrote:
>
> So if there was a way by using such techniques as NLP modelling
> you could learn what the acknowledged greats do that makes them
> different from myself. If you could find this out understand it then
> use it yourself then you may be able to approach there ability?
Maybe they're just better than you, or have worked 50 times harder than
you, or just want it more than you?
What it is about today's sociological climate that leads people to
believe that everybody is equal? We're not. Sure, in a democracy we
should be treated AS IF we're all equal but we're not really equal.
Equal opportunity is not equality. All men are not created equal even if
that seemed self evident to some folks a couple of hundred years ago.
Some people are just plain better equipped to do certain things, like
music, than everybody else. This is what it means to be special. Some
people are just special. Appreciate them and try to not be jealous.
The philosophy that no-one is more special musically than anyone else
has lead to things like karoake and punk rock, things the world could do
without IMO.
A philosophy that is trying to help people be at peace with themselves
should not be telling them that they can be musical geniuses if they
just adopt that philosphy's mind set. That is manipulative cult bullshit
and can lead to no good.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Thom j.
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c967a4...@news.freeserve.net...
Nazodesu
<cZvl8.19624$Ex5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Ethan
Young <(laissez_faire)@att.net> wrote:
> Hey Mark-
>
> No hard feelings...we're just bitter and ignorant...with that said, you'd
> probably be better off asking a psychiatrist newsgroup, or a psychologist
> (in person!)...jazz guitarists tend not double major in psychology, I guess.
Irritating, aren't we? The way we ask questions and all.
Nazodesu
<bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> | > I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
> >> | > and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
> >> |
> >> | Okay I'll bite, what's NLP?
> >>
> >>
> Once again, if you'll just click the link in Mark's post, you'll find a page
> where you'll find tons of info, including a brief description of what NLP
> is. Really not that much trouble. I did it, read a couple of articles and
> (so far) no salesman has called, which is good because I'm not buying.
I'm unsure why you're repeating this. I went to the site in quesion. I
didn't see anything about guitar or music. How much research am I
expected to do?
Bob Russell
mus...@adelphia.net wrote on 3/18/02 10:59 PM:
> I'm unsure why you're repeating this. I went to the site in quesion. I
> didn't see anything about guitar or music. How much research am I
> expected to do?
Mark's point, I believe, was precisely that he was interested in possible
applications for NLP in learning to play jazz and was wondering whether
anyone here had used it. He included a link in case someone wanted to know
what NLP was. He did not claim that there would be any information
pertaining to guitar or music there.
As to why I repeated it: in your first post, you asked what NLP was. A
couple of people responded, including my original response suggesting that
you click his link if you wanted to know what NLP was. Your next post
indicated some annoyance that nobody had provided "an illuminating
response"; reading the short article "Simply Introducing NLP" should have
provided sufficient illumination if a definition of NLP was what you wanted.
In your next post, you broadened your question, asking what relationship NLP
had to jazz, guitar, etc. Well, that was Mark's original question, too! He
wanted to know if anyone had had any success using it as a tool for learning
guitar. I read some of the NLP material on the linked site, and I'm doubtful
that NLP would offer much benefit. However, Mark's question seemed sincere
enough to me; I don't think he was trying to sell anything, just asking a
question.
Ethan Young
in this guy's shoes...or any of his other clothes, for that matter. Maybe
we should be more open-minded?
That post was supposed to be an apology for another post of mine...I've been
under a bit of stress lately.
Later,
Ethan
"Being sorry for stuff since 1984"
"Nazodesu" <mus...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:180320021954457509%mus...@adelphia.net...
Bob Russell
Young at laisse...@att.net wrote on 3/19/02 1:04 AM:
> Maybe
> we should be more open-minded?
That was my point too, Ethan. I agree with many who posted that "NLP"
probably wouldn't be of much value to someone trying to learn to play jazz;
I'm especially suspicious of any purported shortcut to the process of
becoming a jazz player. But I reached those conclusions after reading a few
articles, which didn't take all that long. The guy came in and simply asked
a question or two in a civil and respectful manner; I didn't feel right
about saying anything either too positive or too negative until I at least
found out what he was talking about.
I've noticed a general tendency in here for people to jump all over anyone
who brings up psychology. Admittedly, most of us here aren't psychologists
and aren't equipped for knowledgeable in-depth discussions of such things.
But there's definitely a psychological component to music. I don't see how
it could hurt to acknowledge that occasionally as long as the discussion
stays on topic.
Nazodesu
<bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jesus, quite an analysis. In sum, I asked what NLP was instead of
reading the website. I'm unsure why my mundane question is the focus of
so much fascination for you.
Mr.Will
>has lead to things like karoake and punk rock, things the world could do
>without IMO.
>
I agree with much of what you said - bear in mind I set up community music
programmes all over my area - and my MAJOR contention with most of the other
community music orgs in this country was that they were churning out utterly
awful music and saying it was valid because it was made in the community
(ie.gravy train for lottery funding). I made sure that I set up the things I
did with the right spirit in mind. Sure, none of these people are musical
geniuses, and nobody can pretend that they're going to be, BUT they have as
much right to do their music as anyone else on this planet. On this point we
ARE all equal. That goes for Karaoke and punk too. I'm pretty sure people could
be as dismissive about jazz guitar if they wanted to be.
>A philosophy that is trying to help people be at peace with themselves
>should not be telling them that they can be musical geniuses if they
>just adopt that philosphy's mind set. That is manipulative cult bullshit
>and can lead to no good.
I've alluded to that above.
Mr.Will
Jazz guitar and great photos
www.mr-will.co.uk
Mark
I was not offended by any of the comments Music and jazz espcially to
me is all about being open minded, you restrict you creativity when
you blinker youself in anyway. The great musicians were Very open
minded that is why they were great they dared and tried to think
something that nobody else could dare think at the time, Charlie
Parker for example. All the musicians i play with, all of them are far
more musically accomplished than i, are very open minded, i guess
thats why they tour all over the and probably play gigs you go and
see.
My point was really to test the water about what people think about
applying a new process of learning to playing the guitar and see if
people are open minded enough to think:
"hey maybe there are other ways of learning and i am not aware of all
of them and these are other ways that could help me progress further
that i am already."
Because for me the music thing is about learning and increasing my
ability to learn. and when you become blinkered then you musical
development is suffercated
Don't worry the feedback i received will not stop what i am trying to
acheive and when i finish it I will get back in touch with you all
hear and hopefully i will be able to show you something you have not
seen before. Did anybody see the matrix
FREE YOUR MIND
Kind regards,
Mark
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:52:57 GMT, Ma...@nospam.com (Mark) wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
>and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
>NLP modelling to help learn jazz guitar. My question really came from
>a point made in another thread "what do you really need to know" .
>Where somebody said
>
>At the risk of being overly metaphysical, the REAL STUFF
>transcends "knowing". You can know every mode of every scale; you can
>write dissertations on how to develop melodic material and you can
>still sound like s**t. It's got more do with living music and living
>your instrument, but that's not the whole thing either. If somebody
>could write "it " down, that somebody would be a rich SOB, but it
>hasn't happened yet. People can suggest one strategy or another, but
>in the end all we can do is struggle with it on our own terms and hope
>we prove to be worthy.
>
>I think that NLP is the tool that would enable this and would make
>learning Jazz guitar very much easier. I am currently looking to write
>a book about modelleing the Moeller technique for drumming. But in the
>future may also look in to doing the same for guitar
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
>
>Just a quick note i though i should add. NLP is a very broad subject
>it is really a way of controlling your own brain and being aware of
>how your brain works. Modelling in NLP is when you take a range of
>acknowledged experts in a field and 'model' the processes they go
>through when they are performing the task you have chosen to look at,
>in this case jazz guitar. This includes what they are thinking about,
>how they feel, etc. Then look for the things they all do, they may be
>large things, but normally it is the more subtle things that make the
>difference which of course are more difficult for the adverage student
>to pick up.NLP modelling allows you to move from the phase of
>unconsious incompetence to consious competence in the learning cycle.
>It has been used in all kinds of area's from sport to speech theraypy
>with amazing result. (this is a quick desciption and by no means
>complete, if you are interested in NLP check out the following web
>site http://www.neurosemantics.com/)
>
>
Bob Russell
mus...@adelphia.net wrote on 3/19/02 3:05 AM:
> I'm unsure why my mundane question is the focus of
> so much fascination for you.
Actually, it's not at all. Never mind.
cl...@claymoore.com
>Hi All,
>
>I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
>and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
>NLP modelling to help learn jazz guitar. My question really came from
>a point made in another thread "what do you really need to know" .
>Where somebody said
Hi Mark,
I read a few of the comments so far and, well, I'll just chime in with
a short comment.
Probably the biggest "popularizer" of NLP is motivational
author/speaker Anthony Robbins. He wrote a couple of best-sellers
which I believe both contain bits of NLP technique - "Awaken the Giant
Within" and "Unlimited Power." He claims that he himself aquired a
black belt in Karate in something like six months from using NLP, and
that he was able to use it to design a course to improve pistol
shooting training in the military, by studying the best shooters and
asking them questions about how they "did it." I think the basic ideas
are sound - most players who have gone out to hear good musicians live
will notice that they "bring home" some of what they observe, not just
the sound but the posture, attitude, etc., and it's also a well
documented phenomenon that musicians who involve themselves with the
music on as many levels as possible learn faster and more completely.
Clay Moore
cl...@claymoore.com
>Hi All,
>
>I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
>and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
>NLP modelling to help learn jazz guitar.
After reading a few more of the comments in this thread I thought I'd
pipe in some more. Again, I don't claim to be anything of an expert in
NLP, I barely know anything about it. BUT, I don't think they are that
off base. The unfortunate thing about the writings I read on the
website mentioned (scanned, actually), is the use of cryptic terms for
the concepts. Take "Super-Charge Your Brain Using Meta-States" for
example. What I take that to mean, stripped down, is "psyching
yourself up." You focus on what you want, get excited about it, and
try to weed out thoughts of doubt and failure. Jim Hall talks about
these things in his Exploring Jazz Guitar book, Wes talked about them
on an album I have where he is being interviewed, and I'm sure every
Olympic medalist has had to learn to do this as well. And I'm sure
anyone who gigs for a living can vouch for the (usual) difference in
attitude between playing a gig of background music and playing the
same tunes in a jazz club with good listeners. Yeah, there are
circumstantial differences, but the really important differences are
your (individual and collective) attitudes towards the gig. Thoughts?
Clay Moore
Mark
thanks for the comments. I understand you point of veiw but i happen
to disagree. about some people being just special. One example of this
for me is Mozart and beethoven. We are told that mozart would just
able hear a complete symphony in his head. He would hear the complete
finished peice, it was so strong that he would stop conversations and
was compelled to write it down - no doubt a musical genius. Beethoven
on the other (so we are told) would take an idea and play with it work
it and work it until he got what he wanted - another musical genius in
my opinion. Two very different ways of getting to oustanding results.
In my opinion you get what you give. I love to play golf (OK i know
thats worth a dig) and heard this said by Jack Nicholas
One day he was praticing before a competition and a fan came up to him
and started chatting. The usual stuff etc.... on walking away he said
to a friend " i would give my life to be able to play like that", Jack
turned to him and said "you don't understand I did."
And that for me says it all. what are you prepared to give - Would you
give up you life, your family, your sanity or even your life..to be
able to play like charlie parker or John Coltrane?
As for the following comment:
"A philosophy that is trying to help people be at peace with
themselves should not be telling them that they can be musical
geniuses if they just adopt that philosphy's mind set. That is
manipulative cult bullshit and can lead to no good.
It's never the information that makes it dangerous it is the way
people perceive it and then use it or manipulate it. Over my life i
have had many people on many occassions tell me i couldn't or wouldn't
be able to do something. I'm just so glad i don't listen to any of
them.
Kind regards,
Mark
Joey Goldstein
However, no learning technique in the universe will make you a musical
genius if you were not already born with the capacity to be a musical
genius. You might be a much better musician than you would have been
without those learning tools though.
Gifted people who don't work hard fail.
People with smaller gifts who do work really hard can often make
important contributions.
People with large gifts who also work really hard are remembered several
generations after they have died.
ANYBODY can play music and EVERYBODY should. But not everybody has the
capacity to be a musical master no matter how or what they work on. I'm
sorry but it just doesn't work that way.
Good luck.
--
Mark
I have a question for you:
Have you ever sat down and thought OK I can play real good but what
about practicing, How could i practice better? are there other ways i
am not aware of that could really help me. I think that the hardest
part of learning to play any instrument well is learning to pratice
effectively. OK, you will say the what a load of c**p. But think about
it - pratice is the key to being a great player we all know that. But
what if there were ways of practicing that you are not aware of.
Could anybody be so bold as to say there aren't. If you can i will
kneel down and pray at you feet ;-). ( that was a joke, just in case
it was missed ;-) )
i am just searching for ways to improve my pratice technique, in the
same way i search for ways to improve my ear, my chops, my rythmic
feel etc..........
and asking other people who obviously have a great deal of musical
knowledge, i.e. this group if they were aware of what i have in mind
and has it been tried
Kind Regards,
Mark
Max Leggett
>articles, which didn't take all that long. The guy came in and simply asked
>a question or two in a civil and respectful manner; I didn't feel right
>about saying anything either too positive or too negative until I at least
>found out what he was talking about.
Bob, by actually trying to understand what another person is saying,
and educating yourself on any given subject, you have broken the
cardinal rule of usenet. How on earth can you flame someone if you
make an effort to understand them? I ask ya. As a punishment, you are
sentenced to a maximum of two Trappistes a day until further notice.
Mark
thanks for your comments, I am actually very aware of what NLP is and
is not and would disagree that it cannot be applied in the way i have
"hinted" at. Really the link i provided did not go into the areas i am
am looking at it was just so people who were unaware of what NLP is
could get a basic idea.
I suppose my motivation is from the point of veiw there are alot of
books out there the majority of which are adverage, there are alot of
teachers out there, many of who really miss the point (that comment is
through my own personal experience). i want to look into new ways of
learning that will help the future generation of
musicians/guitarist/drummers.
I think the greatest compliment any teacher can have is to watch a
student they have taught exceed there own ability, knowing you have
helped somebody's musical development to that point has to be every
teachers goal. This is mine.
Hey, i may be right of track, i might never make anything of the ideas
i have. I actually believe i have some really good ideas about this
kind of stuff and hope to do something that will help other musicians.
Kind Regards,
Mark
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:33:25 GMT, "skrohn" <skr...@optonline.net>
wrote:
Max Leggett
>Kevin
>
>I have a question for you:
>
>Have you ever sat down and thought OK I can play real good but what
>about practicing, How could i practice better? are there other ways i
>am not aware of that could really help me. I think that the hardest
>part of learning to play any instrument well is learning to pratice
>effectively. OK, you will say the what a load of c**p.
Not at all. Wasting time practicing the wrong things is something we
all do and try to avoid.
>it - pratice is the key to being a great player we all know that. But
>what if there were ways of practicing that you are not aware of.
That's why you get a teacher.
Mark
I'm actually wearing a pair of italian hand made shoes, and a Prada
suit.
;-)
They really quite comfortable as it goes
Mark
Mark
Joey,
thanks for the comments. I understand you point of veiw but i happen
to disagree. about some people being just special. One example of this
for me is Mozart and beethoven. We are told that mozart would just
able hear a complete symphony in his head. He would hear the complete
finished peice, it was so strong that he would stop conversations and
was compelled to write it down - no doubt a musical genius. Beethoven
on the other (so we are told) would take an idea and play with it work
it and work it until he got what he wanted - another musical genius in
my opinion. Two very different ways of getting to oustanding results
but the second one had to persevere until he got the desired outcome.
You could say his gift was he didn't give up and had a belief in his
own ability - genius
In my opinion you get what you give. I love to play golf (OK i know
thats worth a dig) and heard this said by Jack Nicholas
One day he was praticing before a competition and a fan came up to him
and started chatting. The usual stuff etc.... on walking away the fan
said to a friend " i would give my life to be able to play like that",
Jack turned to him and said "you don't understand I did."
And that for me says it all. what are you prepared to give - Would you
give up your time, your family, your sanity or even your life..to be
able to play like charlie parker or John Coltrane?
As for the following comment:
"A philosophy that is trying to help people be at peace with
themselves should not be telling them that they can be musical
geniuses if they just adopt that philosphy's mind set. That is
manipulative cult bullshit and can lead to no good.
It's never the information that makes it dangerous it is the way
people perceive it and then use it or manipulate it. Over my life i
have had many people on many occassions tell me i couldn't or wouldn't
be able to do something. I'm just so glad i don't listen to any of
them.
Kind regards,
Mark
Joey Goldstein
Mark wrote:
>
> Joey,
>
> thanks for the comments. I understand you point of veiw but i happen
> to disagree. about some people being just special. One example of this
> for me is Mozart and beethoven. We are told that mozart would just
> able hear a complete symphony in his head. He would hear the complete
> finished peice, it was so strong that he would stop conversations and
> was compelled to write it down - no doubt a musical genius. Beethoven
> on the other (so we are told) would take an idea and play with it work
> it and work it until he got what he wanted - another musical genius in
> my opinion. Two very different ways of getting to oustanding results.
You just said that you did not believe that some people were more
special in certain areas like music than other people and then you go on
to describe two of the most special musicians that ever lived. You're
not making any sense.
> In my opinion you get what you give. I love to play golf (OK i know
> thats worth a dig) and heard this said by Jack Nicholas
>
> One day he was praticing before a competition and a fan came up to him
> and started chatting. The usual stuff etc.... on walking away he said
> to a friend " i would give my life to be able to play like that", Jack
> turned to him and said "you don't understand I did."
>
> And that for me says it all. what are you prepared to give -
Right. You have to work hard and you have to be willing to acieve your
goal by any means necessary. But if Jack Nicholas did not already have
an aptitude (genetic?) to play golf he truly would have been giving up
his life because he'd be a poor below average golfer who doesn't know
how to do anything else. He gave up nothing. He got everything he really wanted.
> Would you
> give up you life, your family, your sanity or even your life..to be
> able to play like charlie parker or John Coltrane?
No. But I have passed on a lot of that stuff to play like ME. I have
"given up" nothing. I have gotten everything I want and need (except I
could use some more money, and because I'm sort of lazy I don't play as
well as I potentially could, etc. <g>).
> As for the following comment:
>
> "A philosophy that is trying to help people be at peace with
> themselves should not be telling them that they can be musical
> geniuses if they just adopt that philosphy's mind set. That is
> manipulative cult bullshit and can lead to no good.
>
> It's never the information that makes it dangerous it is the way
> people perceive it and then use it or manipulate it.
I agree. The way YOU seem to be percieving these NLP techniques is
dangerous. They are probably fine learning techniques and they may well
help you become a better musician than you would be without them but
they will not put you on a par with Mozart or Beethoven.
> Over my life i
> have had many people on many occassions tell me i couldn't or wouldn't
> be able to do something. I'm just so glad i don't listen to any of
> them.
That's a good attitude to take. If you do have what it takes to be a
Coltrane then only in trying to achieve your goal will you be happy and
fulfilled. If you don't have what it takes then at some point you have
to realize that pursuing that goal will make you miserable and you'll
have to decide to change plans on your own.
Good luck.
Mr.Will
be a better player.
Nobody can suggest that just with the right attitude you can become a musical
genius or virtuoso guitar player, but lets be honest - people who shut
themselves off from trying new things or learning new things are not really
going to progress beyond the boundries that they've set up.
Differences are very subtle, but people who are very negative in their mind
will stop themselves from being a better player(note I said BETTER, not genius
or virtuoso).
You know the classical guitar genre is one I got fed up with because of certain
closed mindedness towards jazz and other forms of music. When I hear jazz
players dissing classical players or any other form of music I get just as
frustrated.
Joey Goldstein
Max Leggett wrote:
>
> I'm not Kevin, but I'll jump in.
>
> >Kevin
> >
> >I have a question for you:
> >
> >Have you ever sat down and thought OK I can play real good but what
> >about practicing, How could i practice better? are there other ways i
> >am not aware of that could really help me. I think that the hardest
> >part of learning to play any instrument well is learning to pratice
> >effectively. OK, you will say the what a load of c**p.
>
> Not at all. Wasting time practicing the wrong things is something we
> all do and try to avoid.
Wynton says: "Don't practice your mistakes!"
People always try to practice faster than they should and always have to
stop at the same tricky spot over and over over again. They may wind up
practicing that mistake for a full hour! They would be better served by
practicing at the slowest tempo that they can play through the trouble
spot perfectly. That's all that really needs to be said about
practicing. Slow it down.
> >it - pratice is the key to being a great player we all know that. But
> >what if there were ways of practicing that you are not aware of.
>
> That's why you get a teacher.
>
> >i am just searching for ways to improve my pratice technique, in the
> >same way i search for ways to improve my ear, my chops, my rythmic
> >feel etc..........
> >
> >and asking other people who obviously have a great deal of musical
> >knowledge, i.e. this group if they were aware of what i have in mind
> >and has it been tried
> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:00:12 -0500, Kevin & Karen Coffey
> ><kco...@firstbridge.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I think its called practicing!!!!!!!
> >>
> >>Kevin Coffey
> >>
> >>> From: Ma...@nospam.com (Mark)
> >>> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> >>> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:52:57 GMT
> >>> Subject: NLP and learning Jazz guitar?
> >>>
> >>> the processes they go
> >>> through when they are performing the task you have chosen to look at,
> >>> in this case jazz guitar. This includes what they are thinking about,
> >>> how they feel, etc. Then look for the things they all do, they may be
> >>> large things, but normally it is the more subtle things
> >>
> >
--
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> That's all that really needs to be said about
> practicing. Slow it down.
Sorry. That's 85% of what you need to know about practicing. <g>
Mark
My point is that beethoven was famous for the fact that he had to work
at his compositions. He said himself he did not find music easy he had
to work very hard to produce music. It was determination and
dedication that allowed him to produce the music he wrote.
And thanks you, you have proved my point.
You perceive both of these people to be in some way special and
different from everbody else. Well as i said above one of them
(beethhoven) said himself that it was determination and dedication
that allowed him to produce the music he wrote, not some elusive
'natural talent'.
But the outcome from both is the same no one could argue that one was
better than the other they are both amazing. It's all down to the
power of the mind and what you believe you can do. It's a fact that
90% of cancer patients who beleive they will get better get better.
And 90% of those who think they will die die. Are you aware of what
happened to Lance Armstrong the american cyclist. If you want to see
what the power of the mind can do check out his life, same for greg
lemond, another cyclist.
Regards,
.
Mark
You just said that you did not believe that some people were more
special in certain areas like music than other people and then you go
on
to describe two of the most special musicians that ever lived. You're
not making any sense.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:10:55 -0500, Joey Goldstein
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Display Name
There's a book by Joseph O'Conner called 'Not Pulling Strings,' that
discusses music learning and NLP. I believe it's oriented to classical
music for the most part, however.
http://nlp-platform.com/temp/resources/Practical/books/book886.asp
http://www.lambent.com/public/files/NotPullingStrings.pdf
Rob
Robert Schwartz
Life Coach, NLP
212.674.3598H 646.932.2579M
Inquire about Complimentary Introductory Session
www.todaycoach.com
Joey Goldstein
Mark wrote:
>
> Joey,
>
> My point is that beethoven was famous for the fact that he had to work
> at his compositions. He said himself he did not find music easy he had
> to work very hard to produce music. It was determination and
> dedication that allowed him to produce the music he wrote.
>
> And thanks you, you have proved my point.
No I did not. I disproved your point but you have just blinded yourself
to it. Your mind is already made up. So be it.
Good luck.
> You perceive both of these people to be in some way special and
> different from everbody else. Well as i said above one of them
> (beethhoven) said himself that it was determination and dedication
> that allowed him to produce the music he wrote, not some elusive
> 'natural talent'.
Right. I never said it was easy. Do you have the determination of
Beethoven? No. If you did you would be Bethoven. Music is produced by
people. Beethoven was wired to be Beethoven, work ethic and all. You
will never be Beethoven. If you're lucky you'll get to be you. If you
have some talent and you work REAL hard other people might start calling
you a genius and your music might live after you've gone. If you work
real hard and you have no talent the above scenario is unlikely and you
will probably be miserable.
> But the outcome from both is the same no one could argue that one was
> better than the other they are both amazing. It's all down to the
> power of the mind and what you believe you can do. It's a fact that
> 90% of cancer patients who beleive they will get better get better.
> And 90% of those who think they will die die. Are you aware of what
> happened to Lance Armstrong the american cyclist. If you want to see
> what the power of the mind can do check out his life, same for greg
> lemond, another cyclist.
>
> Regards,
> .
> Mark
>
> You just said that you did not believe that some people were more
> special in certain areas like music than other people and then you go
> on
> to describe two of the most special musicians that ever lived. You're
> not making any sense.
>
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:10:55 -0500, Joey Goldstein
> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Mark
been discovered.....
My point is that over the last couple of decades or so there have been
massive advance in the "HOW TO" of learning. Tony Bouzan etc... There
has to be even further advances in the future, probably in 50 years
time with the way the younger generation are taught at
school/college/university will be far different from today.
I am questioning the standard method of learning, not specific bits
like practice slowly or sing lines but overall. I know people might
say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Well, i don't adhear to that type
of thinking. I think "if it ain't broke why don't we totally redesign
it look at all the other options, research ideas, look into other
areas that may be relevent and make it more efficient and effective.
Then redesign it with the NEW knowledge we have found that was not
available when the last method/design was invented
Hence the majority of major inventions.
Regards,
Mark
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:54:23 GMT, spams...@else.com (Max Leggett)
wrote:
Mark
What are your thoughts on the text?
Regards,
Mark
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:47:07 -0500, "Display Name" <em...@address.com>
wrote:
Rick Benstock
I was heavily into NLP in the mid to late 80's. I read almost all of Bandler
and Grinder's work and some others besides, most anything I could get on
Milton Erickson, and even attended a week-long "funshop" with the hypnotist
that Erickson's daughter considered to be as good as her dad, namely Dave
Dobson, on "Other-Than-Conscious Communication" and "No Fault Psychology" on
Vancouver Island.
I think that to model a great jazz player effectively you would have to be
able to be in his presence for a while to be able to experience his
other-than-conscious communication of how he goes about doing what he does,
whether it is composing, arranging, or playing. Since most of how he goes
about doing what he does is below the level of conscious awareness, there is
no way he could explain it to you consciously.
There are many problems with this. First of all, it is doubtful that anyone
you don't know would let you hang out with them for an indefinite period of
time. Second, are you confident enough in your ability to read another
person's other-than-conscious communication? And finally, even if you could
model his processing effectively, would that be the way for you to become
the best musician you could be? Maybe you would be better served to to go
with the grain of your own other-than-conscious processing rather than to
try to model someone else's? Maybe that would lead to better and truer music
than any amount of modeling of anyone, no matter how great they are? Using
your own example, could Beethoven have been any better by "modeling" Mozart?
You get my point.
Best wishes,
Rick
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c976972...@news.freeserve.net...
Mark
I am happy with who i am, The level of detemination i have in my life
is not really relevent and i have never eluded to myself as being a
genius.
You are obviously an very accomplished musician, i checked your web
site, i hope you don't mind. I have a great amount of respect for
somebody who has the accademic history you do. We will have to
disagree on our thoughts about this kind of stuff.
Kind Regards,
Mark
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:15:56 -0500, Joey Goldstein
Bob Russell
Max, I will gratefully accept this sentence, although I think I deserve a
harsher one; could you make that a *minimum* of two? ;)
--Bob R.
Mark
I think your intial points are valid and yes it would be very
difficult for me to model Miles Davis (that reminds me i must
subscribe to alt.binaires.Psychics.jazz.musicians ;-) ) and i would
have to be in another musicians presence. But these are points i have
thought about already.
Am i confident in my ability? i know i have a lot to learn in many
areas of my life but i also know when i put my mind to something i can
achieve it. So essentially, i know my current limits and am aware of
what want to achieve.
I agree the first place to start is with myself, as you are aware of
what NLP is i can say i have spent quite some time developing my own
representational systems and have made massive improvement in my
weeker ones. I have spent time trying to understand what it is that i
do when i play and have changed my playing due to what i have found
Also as i mentioned at the beginning i am also a drummer and am
looking to do this with the Moeller technique, this is a hand
technique for drumming used by a lot of the top players.
I modelled myself on this, I am left handed but chose to play the
drums right handed (as i do guitar) because it's the the path of most
resistence. so it would develop the week side of my brain more
quickly. ( i actually practice the drums both left and right handed so
i can play everything both ways. but play with the kit set up right
handed). I found it very easy to perfect the technique with my left
hand but the right was an issue, so i modelled my left hand, and then
applied it to my right, and my right hand is now as strong as my left
and i made this change in a very short period of time
As for your final point Mozart/beethoven, could one have helped the
other, i don't know. But if you ask: could i glean something that
would help other musicians from either of these musical giants if i
could model them? that answer to me would be yes.
Rick, please give me feedback on my answers, I try to ask myself
questions about what i am trying to do but others will always ask you
questions you may not have thought of.
I really appreciate you responce
Kind regards,
Mark
Viviano, S. M. (Salvatore)
<Article snipped>
Hi Mark,
I'm no expert at NLP (or jazz guitar for that matter ) and I'm at work so
I
can't run to my library to check anything but I seem to recall that a
number
of NLP practitioners have done research and modeling in the field of
learning
music. I don't know of any focused on Jazz guitar per se.
But some authors you might check out:
Tamara Andreas has a Masters degree in Music.
Robert Dilts collaborrated with a guy (Todd Epstein I think) who was a
musician.
These guys did a lot of research into Learning in general.
The closest I know of is Joseph O'Conner. He has done a fair amount of
modeling in the area
of Classical Guitar performance. I think he's published a detailed
account of his work (which
I haven't read). But he gives a summary of his model in a book called
"Introducing NLP".
There's no magic bullet though. After reading what O'Conner does when he
sits down to learn
a piece I thought to myself "Jeez I'm not going to do all that". As I
recall he spends several
days reading the music and visualizing every note on the neck before
even picking up a guitar.
I think NLP probably has a lot to teach us about maximizing our learning
and our practice time.
There's no way around putting in tons of practice time though.
-- Sal
>
>
>
--
Regards, Sal Viviano (sviv...@ford.com)
Display Name
I think it's a pretty good book in general. It might be a little tricky if
you're completely new to NLP, but if you have some background, I think it
will give you some good ideas. There are countless ways to use NLP in your
practice of jazz. Eliciting your own learning strategy in other contexts
may be useful. You can also model someone else's practice strategy and add
it to your own.
It's not NLP, but Kenny Werner's book Effortless mastery is excellent.
There's a video by the same title where he lectures on similar topics. It's
not quite as good as the book, but it's very entertaining.
Peace,
Rob
Robert Schwartz
Life Coach, NLP
212.674.3598H 646.932.2579M
Inquire about Complimentary Introductory Session
www.todaycoach.com
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c9782c9...@news.freeserve.net...
Joey Goldstein
Mark wrote:
>
> Joey,
>
> I am happy with who i am, The level of detemination i have in my life
> is not really relevent and i have never eluded to myself as being a
> genius.
>
> You are obviously an very accomplished musician, i checked your web
> site, i hope you don't mind. I have a great amount of respect for
> somebody who has the accademic history you do. We will have to
> disagree on our thoughts about this kind of stuff.
There was one paragraph in your original post that I disagreed with.
Only one. Either you are just overzealous in your fondness of the NLP
techniques or you are extremely naive and deluded about them. I'm sure
there are some fine things about NLP but it can not and will not enable
you to be something that you are not.
Best of luck to you.
Joey Goldstein
Mark wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> I think your intial points are valid and yes it would be very
> difficult for me to model Miles Davis (that reminds me i must
> subscribe to alt.binaires.Psychics.jazz.musicians ;-) ) and i would
> have to be in another musicians presence. But these are points i have
> thought about already.
>
> Am i confident in my ability? i know i have a lot to learn in many
> areas of my life but i also know when i put my mind to something i can
> achieve it. So essentially, i know my current limits and am aware of
> what want to achieve.
>
> I agree the first place to start is with myself, as you are aware of
> what NLP is i can say i have spent quite some time developing my own
> representational systems and have made massive improvement in my
> weeker ones. I have spent time trying to understand what it is that i
> do when i play and have changed my playing due to what i have found
>
> Also as i mentioned at the beginning i am also a drummer and am
> looking to do this with the Moeller technique, this is a hand
> technique for drumming used by a lot of the top players.
>
> I modelled myself on this, I am left handed but chose to play the
> drums right handed (as i do guitar) because it's the the path of most
> resistence.
FYI Most accomplished musicians are looking for the path of least resistance.
--
Nazodesu
<Ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Have you ever sat down and thought OK I can play real good but what
> about practicing, How could i practice better? are there other ways i
> am not aware of that could really help me. I think that the hardest
> part of learning to play any instrument well is learning to pratice
> effectively. OK, you will say the what a load of c**p. But think about
> it - pratice is the key to being a great player we all know that. But
> what if there were ways of practicing that you are not aware of.
Certainly I don't think this is a load of crap. It's a focal point of
my work and always has been. That is--improving practice habits and
content.
Joey Goldstein
Speaking of modeling the behaviour of great players....
When I was young at Berklee and desperate to become a good player we
found out that Chick Corea was a Scientologist. So I read Dianetics and
watched some films on L. Ron Hubbard in the basement of the Scientology
centre in Boston. I didn't buy into it but I was close. Those techniques
and that philosophy sure haven't hurt Chick but he was already a great
player before he got into Scientology.
We heard that Herbie was a Buddhist so lots of us began chanting Num Myo
Renge Kyo over and over again. It was nice and some really hot chicks
were into it too and some of us got laid. But Herbie was already a great
player well before he embraced Buddhism. Buddhism gave him something in
addition to what he already had in music.
John McLaughlin had a guru. I was a big fan. I read some of the Bagavad
Gita but did not look for a guru. Ever hear him play before he embraced
Eastern philosphy? It was all there.
When I was studying with Mick Goodrick I found out he was into Sufism. I
read some books. I then became convinced that he could read my mind
because Sufis sometimes claim this ability.
Charlie Parker liked to drink. That one was easy to embrace. It didn't
help my playing but I had a good time. I would have tried junk but I was
too scared. Good thing.
Someone once told me that Gary Burton, my all time idol might be gay. I
don't know or care if it's true but no thanks. "Not that there's
anything wrong with that." Seinfeld.
Now learning what and how people like these guys studied and practiced
IS way more worth looking at then anything in their outward appearance
or personal lives. Still no-one can ever be like them. They have already
done that. If there is anything that people like this can teach you it
is that you have to find your OWN way and your OWN voice.
This fascination that people have with the personal lives of musicians
is fascinating to me. I think it is almost completely useless to know
these types of things. Just listen to the music. The fact that Beethoven
went deaf and continued to write such amazing music is pretty damned
interesting though.
People have been modeling their favorite musicians since time began and
it's still not where it's at.
whack
>
> >it - pratice is the key to being a great player we all know that. But
> >what if there were ways of practicing that you are not aware of.
>
> That's why you get a teacher.
>
teacher shmeacher
-w
"pentatonic plunker"
skrohn
My comment was misplaced in the thread.
It was not directed at you specifically.
I thought that Marks post was interesting and showed
that he digs deep and explores with an open mind.
While I disagreed with Marks premise, I tried to
answer respond in an honest and helpful way.
Maybe he's right and I'm wrong - I don't know.
I have no problem kidding around, but people should
be treated with respect. There's often a chance that
they know something you don't.
Creators need a certain degree of humility.
Most are here to share and grow.
Without humility that is impossible.
We are exposed to too much narrow minded non
thinkers daily. I personally don't like to see it here.
Scott
"Ethan Young" <(laissez_faire)@att.net> wrote in message
news:HxAl8.20179$Ex5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
skrohn
Sounds like you have a noble purpose.
Good luck.
Scott
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c976972...@news.freeserve.net...
skrohn
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3C97B8FB...@nowhere.net...
> FYI Most accomplished musicians are looking for the path of least
resistance.
Joey,
According to the book "The Path of least resistance", we can't help but
follow the path of least resistance. There really is no other way.
We need to set the structures that determine that path toward our
advantage.
Scott
Nazodesu
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> We heard that Herbie was a Buddhist so lots of us began chanting Num Myo
> Renge Kyo over and over again. It was nice and some really hot chicks
> were into it too and some of us got laid. But Herbie was already a great
> player well before he embraced Buddhism. Buddhism gave him something in
> addition to what he already had in music.
Nichirin Shosu sect. This was the one I pursued. I gave it a good
earnest approach. Hey if it was good enough for my demi-god Wayne
Shorter it was certainly worthy of consideration.
Previoulsy I had a fairly successful run with self-hypnotism and with
Transcendental Meditation (tm). At the time I found them both very
beneficial.
Among my pack, as we sorted what was and wasn't worthwhile we
considered all the options of Coltrane and Parker and the others.
One of my mantras was Parker's: "First you learn your instrument, then
you learn your music, then you forget all that shit and blow." And he
died a junkie. So we figured there was another node in there he
omitted; then you learn yourself. And perhaps Trane pursued this at
with the final years of his spiritual meanderings.
"With half-damp eyes I stared to the room, where my friends and I had
spent many an afternoon, where together we weathered many a storm..."
And this was one of them.
In the end Nichirin Shoshu didn't provide me enough to hang onto. And
our local Buddhist "wise men" proved quite petty, and power-hungry to
my thinking at the time.
Hey I gave it a sincere shot. Another guy, he got into Nichirin Shoshu
to the extent that he ditched his horn.
I'm still unsure who was the more successful in this process.
Jay Carlson
Thom j.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3C97730D...@nowhere.net...
Tom Lippincott
>goal by any means necessary. But if Jack Nicholas did not already have
>an aptitude (genetic?) to play golf he truly would have been giving up
>his life because he'd be a poor below average golfer who doesn't know
>how to do anything else. He gave up nothing. He got everything he really
>wanted.
>
I don't have a really strong opinion one way or the other about "nurture vs.
nature" but I guess I do tend to lean more toward the "nurture" side. Anyway,
I have heard people make this argument before (that unless a person has a
"gift" or "talent" or "genius" or whatever for what it is they are trying to
do, they can work on their particular discipline as hard as they can all their
life and never become anything more than a "poor below average golfer who
doesn't know how to do anything else.") The thing is, I can't say I've ever
met an actual person like this, not once, not ever. I HAVE come across people
who seemed initially to pick up music, or whatever else, more easily than
someone else, but in my experience, in the long run this rarely makes much
difference. Joey, or anyone else, have you ever met anyone who lived, ate and
breathed music, practiced 12 hours a day as a lifestyle (for real, not just
someone who claimed to, or who did for a month once), ect. ect.who WASN'T a
really outstanding musician? I've never met anyone who lived their life like
this who WASN'T a truly great musician (I've only met a very few that I'm aware
of though).
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
Bob Russell
tomli...@aol.comnospam wrote on 3/20/02 12:41 AM:
> Joey, or anyone else, have you ever met anyone who lived, ate and
> breathed music, practiced 12 hours a day as a lifestyle (for real, not just
> someone who claimed to, or who did for a month once), ect. ect.who WASN'T a
> really outstanding musician?
I've met plenty of people who talked about music incessantly and who claimed
to "live, eat and breathe music". Needless to say, they usually can't
actually PLAY music. I've met very few people who actually DO "live, eat and
breathe music", but the ones I have met have always been very good
musicians.
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Thom j.
a person. He's my first cousin, he played-practied 8-10hours daily
from the age of 5yrs/old to the present on the piano & moved on
as life did.
Now plays every instrument you give him. I admire him with envy
and with 'a bit' of jealousy.. He has played/conducted in some of
most pristine orchestras in the world but not without a price.
He never ceases to amaze me {even after 49+years} and I sware
sometimes he is really an alien! When we were really young he'd
hum' in his sleep. It was always in tune and the things that came
out were almost surreal. Yes I am bias and we are related but he
has that certain something {besides all his long hours} thats just
different then any really good musiscan. It really is like he is not
from "the late great planet earth" most of the time.. phew he's a
scary dude at times.. So I feel he is one of these so called great
muscians you have asked about Tom L... my 2c thom_j.
Paul Sanwald
the ability to focus on something (like practicing) for long hours
every day as a "talent", but people who are incapable of that may
regard it as such.
I know for myself, I think of "talent" mostly in terms of things that
don't come easy to me, personally. If I for example had perfect pitch,
I maybe wouldn't see the ability to name pitches as a talent. I'd
probably at first see it as a deficiency in others. (at least until I
realized it was somewhat uncommon).
Practicing long hours comes easy to most of us, so we don't think
anything of it. however I can't help but wonder if people outside of
music regard it as a "talent".
--paul
On 20 Mar 2002 05:41:20 GMT, tomli...@aol.comnospam (Tom Lippincott)
wrote:
Mark
Exactly, I totally agree, yes there is no way of getting round the
practice. I am fully aware of the kind of practice one should put in.
I'm trying to look into other areas that may have not been totally
explored to do with learning musical instruments that may augment the
standard approach.
For example one area I myself found really useful is as follows, my
own internal visualisation was not a good as it could have been so I
spent a lot of time working on that. I am still far from happy with
what I can do with this. There is still massive room for improvement
So what good is that you may well ask well check this out?
I have now learnt to visualise each of my guitars so vividly in my
head that it is like looking and the guitar. So when I am visualising
what I'm playing I don't ever need to look at the guitar, in fact I
can play in the dark as well as in the light. I can move my hand from
the 3 fret to the 20th fret and make it every time without failure.
Now you may say yes but every good player can do that and of course
you are right. But three months ago I couldn't, know I can do it every
time. I can also move stuff to any position on the guitar when I am
reading effortlessly. I can visualise ANY line I want to play and play
it in any position. I can make big pitch skips in lines from a lower
fret to a higher fret or vice versa. It's also helped me dramatically
when I am learning songs and I transpose them to all keys.
Also I have spent a lot of time working in my Auditory internal
representation. This was quite hard work, but I have, in just a few
months, made massive steps. I have improved my ability to see a chord
progression and hear it in my heard. I am starting to approach the
level where I can choose the extensions I want to hear in my head or
the voicing of the chord I am going to use. This is great because I
can start to use more complex piano chord voicings in my head to play
against. Again not so long ago I would not have been able to do any of
this
I think this kind of stuff is really useful. May not to somebody who
has spent years practicing and has developed these skills already. But
what about less well developed musicians who still need to develop
these skills. I have managed to make more progress in the last 9
months than I have in a number of years.
Another of shoot of what I am working on. Ever find yourself on a
train, stuck somewhere, with an instrument. I can now practice as
effectively without an instrument as I can with one. I spend a lot of
time travelling. I can now practice all the time I am travelling. I
even take Abersold CD's with me; I know the key the songs are in. So I
can practice improvising against the music in my head as if I was
playing the guitar.
OK, another thing slightly of topic, as I have said I am also a
drummer. I have learnt to visualise my drum kit in my head so clearly
that I can hit any of the drums/cymbals etc exactly where I want it
every time with out looking, while still concentrating on the hi-hats
for example. For example hitting a specific part of the ride bell
Part of the premise to what I am doing is "are there quicker ways to
get the 'Basics' down so you can spend more time developing the real
music creativity? I just think of all the time I have wasted trying to
do these things the standard way of practicing when I could have done
them much quicker using the techniques I am working. You see standard
practice techniques are like a doctor giving you a headache tablet to
cure a headache. You are not looking at the cause of the headache.
When you practice in effect you are really trying to develop your
internal representation systems. Why not just work directly on the
internal representational systems and when you have them up to speed
just learn the musical stuff. Also the fact that you have generically
developed these skills means they can also be applied to everything
else in you life not just specifically music.
Sal, tell me what you think?
Regards,
Mark
Mark
When you come across something you can't do you may perceive it as a
talent, of course. But the angle i have been trying to get across is
this.
"If somebody asks me can i rock climb (which i can't) i don't say no,
i say yes i just havn't learnt yet, how hard can it be? Fundermentally
i can't see any reason why i can't. Could a be a great rock climber
why not?"
it is all about persceptions. You see you perceive perfect pitch to be
a talent. Well i have some good news for you, You already have it,
well you did anyway. There has been some recent research by linguists
that has shown that children up to the age of about 2 to 3 ALL have
perfect pitch. It is instrumental in learning how to speak/understand
the language. Once you are able to speak you don't need it anymore so
the skill is lost. But check this out- ALOT of people who speak
languages where the pitch of the word actually changes the meaning of
the word i.e mandarin have perfect pitch in later life. Also they have
found that children who learn musical instruments from very early ages
(before 3 years old) retain this ability. And therefore have a massive
advantage when learning a muscial instrument.
A great friend of mine has perfect pitch. he's said to me that the
speed at which he was able to develop musically has been dramatically
increased because of this skill. and this goes back to what i said to
Sal in my last post:
if you can develop the basics more efficiently then you can
spend more time working on the more advanced concepts.
thought you may like this ;-)
Regards,
Mark
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:50:31 GMT, pcsa...@pobox.com (Paul Sanwald)
wrote:
Joey Goldstein
Of course you're right tom _to a degree_. There are many many really
outstanding musicians. But there are very few Mozarts and Beethovens and
Monks and 'Tranes.
I have been known to exaggerate to make a point but I think my point
still stands.
Paul Sanwald
you have some interesting ideas, and I don't disagree with what
you're saying, however, I am not sure how you are defining "standard
practice techniques". In my experience people have vastly different
ways of practicing things, some of which are much more effective than
others, depending on the person. so basically what I'm saying is it
would clear things up for me (and possibly others) if you could define
what you mean when you say "standard practice techniques". I practice
without my instrument all the time, and know lots of other people that
do the same thing. this type of practicing is taught in school, so I
assume that's not what you're talking about.
--paul
Ethan Young
Ethan
"skrohn" <skr...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:TFPl8.16599$bj1.6...@news02.optonline.net...
Mark
Of course, you are right everybody has a different approach and will
try to develop their 'own' practice strategy. What one person will
practice will be very different. ,
When I say "standard" I mean methods described in books such as Mark
Levine's books /Joe pass books etc....(I won't make a long list bit
you get the idea), what we are taught at music college etc. Methods
that are widely taught to Jazz guitar teachers.
My search is applying techniques used in other fields to other
fields, if that makes sense. Can I find other tools that will develop
the lower level skills we are trying to hone by practicing the guitar
and would these help our musical development and are they applicable
to music. I am currently looking at NLP amongst other things and have
been for a while.
This is why I asked the news group, as obviously there are a lot of
very experienced musicians here who may use techniques I am not aware
of. Maybe, I thought, they have looked at tools like NLP and may be
able to share their knowledge with me.
The final point we are all aiming to achieve is largely the same, we
all want to be great jazz improvisers and we have all chosen the
guitar.
When you talk about the practicing without an instrument. I agree that
is a tool that is used by a lot of people. But what I am asking in
this instance is do those people start by developing their
representation systems to help the practice or do they let the
representational systems develop along with the practice they do. I
have used visualisation on the guitar for a long time. But still my
internal representational system was rough. When I started developing
my different representational systems separately I found the type of
practice I could achieve developed to a level I had never perceived
before. So my point in this instance is. Would this be a good way to
help you practice without an instrument more effectively? My answer is
YES
"My Ultimately question is: is there a shorter more effect path to the
same goal?"
Does this make any sense to you Paul?
Can I give you an idea of how my thinking works to help you understand
where I am coming from, see below
- If I am honest I have a lot of ideas and I want to work on all of
them. I have spent a lot of time researching different areas. You may
have seen the response to one of you other posts about the perfect
pitch; linguistics is something that interests me as well. Why,
because learning a language is much like learning music and again with
languages (as with music) there are some people who speak with an
eloquence and style that others lack. My question is why. Can we learn
to speak eloquently? If the answer is yes, then can we learn to play
eloquently? Can the techniques used to help people speak this way be
applied to music? If learning music is like learning a language then
should we all re-learn the ability of perfect pitch., if this is what
children use to learn there initial language ( as I said before a good
friend of mine has perfect pitch, he has said yes to that question).
This prompts another question - research has shown that musicians are
generally able to learn languages quite easily; due to the acute ears
they develop. But are people with perfect pitch able to learn
languages even more easily? There is research being done in this area
as we speak.
You see I am looking laterally for the straightest path of least
resistance. (I can see Joey, reading this and saying but just a couple
of posts ago you said you chose to play the drums right handed as it
was the path of MOST resistance. Well in that instance my right hand
was my weakest link so I chose a path that would force me to develop
my weak hand and in actual fact the weaker side of my brain the
quickest.) But my search goes way out side the sphere of Jazz guitar.
I hope this explains my ideas a little and may answer your question.
In closing I would say this, as with most people who are researching
anything I am very wary of giving my hand away as it were. I don't
want other people who are maybe thinking along same lines to pick up
on the ideas I have. As they may get to my goal before I do. So yes I
am keeping a lot of what I know back which also makes it difficult to
be totally honest and give you a complete answers to your questions.
Sorry about that
Kind Regards,
Mark
Ethan Young
<cl...@claymoore.com> wrote in message
news:3c975a5a...@news.concentric.net...
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:52:57 GMT, Ma...@nospam.com (Mark) wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
>and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
>NLP modelling to help learn jazz guitar.
After reading a few more of the comments in this thread I thought I'd
pipe in some more. Again, I don't claim to be anything of an expert in
NLP, I barely know anything about it. BUT, I don't think they are that
off base. The unfortunate thing about the writings I read on the
website mentioned (scanned, actually), is the use of cryptic terms for
the concepts. Take "Super-Charge Your Brain Using Meta-States" for
example. What I take that to mean, stripped down, is "psyching
yourself up." You focus on what you want, get excited about it, and
try to weed out thoughts of doubt and failure. Jim Hall talks about
these things in his Exploring Jazz Guitar book, Wes talked about them
on an album I have where he is being interviewed, and I'm sure every
Olympic medalist has had to learn to do this as well. And I'm sure
anyone who gigs for a living can vouch for the (usual) difference in
attitude between playing a gig of background music and playing the
same tunes in a jazz club with good listeners. Yeah, there are
circumstantial differences, but the really important differences are
your (individual and collective) attitudes towards the gig. Thoughts?
Clay Moore
______________________
That is completely true! I play best (and am most comfortable) when I don't
think people are paying (much/direct) attention to me (the 'background'
music factor). However, when I become the direct focus of the audience, my
playing and focus go downhill...I think this is true for everyone, at least
in that how they play changes with the audience situation.
Ethan Young
Tom Lippincott
>outstanding musicians. But there are very few Mozarts and Beethovens and
>Monks and 'Tranes.
>
>I have been known to exaggerate to make a point but I think my point
>still stands.
>
>
>--
>Joey Goldstein
yes of course, YOU are right; there are very few Mozarts, Beethovens, Monks and
Tranes. However, I really think that in a LOT of cases, the thing that
separates them from the rest of us schmucks isn't that they have some "gift
from GAWD" that the rest of us had the bad luck to not get; I think it has more
to do with the probable fact that those guys were way more devoted to their
music than most musicians. I remember hearing a radio documentary about Duke
Ellington a few years back and someone who knew him said that every night, even
after a gig or concert he would sit and play and/or write at the piano all
night. I have my moments where I do things like that, but in general I'm more
likely to watch Conan O'Brien, play video games, or write newsgroup posts.
Maybe I'm deluding myself, but in my mind, this is what separates me from Duke
Ellington's level of mastery; in a sense it's a choice I've made, and that's
okay; I'm happy with the way things are. I think that's part of the acceptance
of being "me" instead of wanting to BE my heroes.
I guess my main reason for carrying on this discussion is that I can't help but
feel like a lot of people use the "nature" argument as a cop out. Why should I
bother practicing more than an hour today, I'm not a born Mozart or Jaco or
whatever, so what's the use. Maybe I don't have it "in me" to be on the same
artistic level as Beethoven, but one thing is for certain; if I decide that's
the case and "give up" then I am certain to meet my expectations. I think this
is why I responded positively to the "Effortless Mastery" thing. My own
personal experience is that I tend to make way more progress when I "think I
can" than when I think "I suck."
Max Leggett
Of Positive Thinking; Mind Control; The Seven Habits Of Highly
Effective People. They are a tool to help people focus and achieve
results. Not everyone needs those tools, but a lot of people find them
helpful. Another tool is a metronome. Mark Kleinhart, who's a better
musician than I am, never uses one and doesn't think they're useful. I
think they're indispensible. Different tools have different value for
different people. While I'm rambling, another tool is university
education for jazz musicians. Mark did 4 years at Rutgers, but Django
didn't need no stinkin' university!! LOL!! Different folks, different
strokes. It's good to know of the various tools available, but it
doesn't necessarily follow that any one tool will be universally
useful. As it happens, I have long believed that anyone can achieve
anything they set their mind to. A lot of people don't, and things
like NLP, Buddhism, whatever, are useful in showing people their
possibilities, and how to set their mind.
Thom j.
I do with many who just can not grasp a concept. Don't you
think Joey? Of course I know you do :)
Thom j.
but it has been voiced for a long time & NLP is nothing new!
"P.O.P.T."= "Power Of Positive Thinking" Dr Norman Vincent Peel
"Ethan Young" <(laissez_faire)@att.net> wrote in message
news:HM4m8.2336$Jc5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Thom j.
to you too...eh? Well done.. a humbled thom_j.
"Max Leggett" <spams...@else.com> wrote in message
news:3c98dd0b...@news.sprint.ca...
Brad
practice makes perfect. The only thing separating me from any other musical
"geniuses" is time and effort. In fact, we owe it to our musical heroes and
those whose music we admire to take their contribution, add something of our
own to it and take it further.
I have furthered my ability to sing and improvise guitar by scatting along
to music and vocalizing the improvised solo lines. In a sense, you could
say that I learned how to do something without actually doing the activity.
I wouldn't classify this as NLP but it works for me. I routinely visualize
the fretboard even when I am not practicing or playing guitar. This has
helped keep the stuff I have learned at the guitar fresh in my mind.
If all I want is personal enjoyment from music then I don't need to change
my approach to composition, improvisation, practice, etc. There are tons of
phenomenal musicans who make a great living as studio musicians but who will
never be remembered centuries from now. The ones who are remembered
predominantly composed their own music and were often quite prolific. They
also wrote music that was unique yet still appreciated by the masses. In a
nutshell, their stuff stood out from all the rest. I doubt Britney Spears
will be remembered in the next century but I'd venture a guess that a modern
day composers/writers like John Williams or Lennon/McCartney will be.
This quote sums it up for me...
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"
-- Isaac Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke (February 5, 1675/1676)
Cheers.
Brad
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c97669c...@news.freeserve.net...
> Kevin
>
> I have a question for you:
>
> Have you ever sat down and thought OK I can play real good but what
> about practicing, How could i practice better? are there other ways i
> am not aware of that could really help me. I think that the hardest
> part of learning to play any instrument well is learning to pratice
> effectively. OK, you will say the what a load of c**p. But think about
> it - pratice is the key to being a great player we all know that. But
> what if there were ways of practicing that you are not aware of.
>
> Could anybody be so bold as to say there aren't. If you can i will
> kneel down and pray at you feet ;-). ( that was a joke, just in case
> it was missed ;-) )
>
> i am just searching for ways to improve my pratice technique, in the
> same way i search for ways to improve my ear, my chops, my rythmic
> feel etc..........
>
> and asking other people who obviously have a great deal of musical
> knowledge, i.e. this group if they were aware of what i have in mind
> and has it been tried
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:00:12 -0500, Kevin & Karen Coffey
> <kco...@firstbridge.net> wrote:
>
> >I think its called practicing!!!!!!!
> >
> >Kevin Coffey
> >
> >> From: Ma...@nospam.com (Mark)
> >> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> >> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:52:57 GMT
> >> Subject: NLP and learning Jazz guitar?
> >>
> >> the processes they go
> >> through when they are performing the task you have chosen to look at,
> >> in this case jazz guitar. This includes what they are thinking about,
> >> how they feel, etc. Then look for the things they all do, they may be
> >> large things, but normally it is the more subtle things
> >
>
Joey Goldstein
Tom Lippincott wrote:
>
> >Of course you're right tom _to a degree_. There are many many really
> >outstanding musicians. But there are very few Mozarts and Beethovens and
> >Monks and 'Tranes.
> >
> >I have been known to exaggerate to make a point but I think my point
> >still stands.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Joey Goldstein
>
> yes of course, YOU are right; there are very few Mozarts, Beethovens, Monks and
> Tranes. However, I really think that in a LOT of cases, the thing that
> separates them from the rest of us schmucks isn't that they have some "gift
> from GAWD" that the rest of us had the bad luck to not get; I think it has more
> to do with the probable fact that those guys were way more devoted to their
> music than most musicians.
From my point of view the desire to work that hard and the ability to
actually do it are part of the "gift".
Your description of yourself is pretty spot on with my description of
myself, btw. But you play better than me! I guess I'll never know if I
could have been a 'Trane. I get fatigued now after practicing 2 or 3
hours a day, and Conan has gotten better lately.
I've always felt extremely privileged to have been able to study for
that time with Pat Metheny, and those lessons were of prime importance
in any musical successes I have had since then but the experience really
fucked me up too. Here was a kid who was 1 year younger than me playing
his ass off, touring with Gary Burton and rehearsing for his first album
as a leader. I knew he was very very good. I knew he would be pretty
successful. I figured he had just started working on jazz right from the
start when he first picked up guitar and had not developed any of the
rock n' roll short sightedness that I had developed. I figured that if I
worked pretty hard for several years (Pat had supposedly only been
playing guitar for about 5 years at that point) that I might be able to
partly catch up and work on that kind of a level.
I had no idea he would become as successful as he has become. I had no
idea his output would be that prolific. I had no idea that his
compositional style and arranging style would influence popular music as
a whole so much. I had no idea he would become as freaking good as he is
right now. I've worked pretty hard some years, not so much at other
times, not nearly as hard as Pat, but I have not even come close to
doing anything nearly as strong as what he was playing back in 1974.
I play pretty good. I'm a good player. I know what great players sound
like and I know I'm not great. At least not right now. I'm still working
at it pretty hard as I begin to push 50, harder than I did for many of
the past 30 years. If NLP could make me great I'd check it out but
there's way too much ingrained scepticism (based on experience) in me to
believe in anything like that. I would check it out just to see if there
are any techniques that could make me a better musician but if someone
tells me it will make me great I know they're full of shit.
And anyway, if a technique came along that could make everybody great
then nobody would be great. We'd all be average.
> I remember hearing a radio documentary about Duke
> Ellington a few years back and someone who knew him said that every night, even
> after a gig or concert he would sit and play and/or write at the piano all
> night. I have my moments where I do things like that, but in general I'm more
> likely to watch Conan O'Brien, play video games, or write newsgroup posts.
> Maybe I'm deluding myself, but in my mind, this is what separates me from Duke
> Ellington's level of mastery; in a sense it's a choice I've made, and that's
> okay; I'm happy with the way things are. I think that's part of the acceptance
> of being "me" instead of wanting to BE my heroes.
> I guess my main reason for carrying on this discussion is that I can't help but
> feel like a lot of people use the "nature" argument as a cop out. Why should I
> bother practicing more than an hour today, I'm not a born Mozart or Jaco or
> whatever, so what's the use. Maybe I don't have it "in me" to be on the same
> artistic level as Beethoven, but one thing is for certain; if I decide that's
> the case and "give up" then I am certain to meet my expectations. I think this
> is why I responded positively to the "Effortless Mastery" thing. My own
> personal experience is that I tend to make way more progress when I "think I
> can" than when I think "I suck."
>
> Tom Lippincott
> Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
> audio samples, articles, CD's at:
> http://www.tomlippincott.com
--
Thom j.
with him but [to me] this does not make you any less or more of
a good/great jazz, or anykind of, a muscian.
My question is after seeing or being near a Pat Metheny, do you
feel or see, looking back, anything particular different in a Pat M
then others? Including yourself or is it just hard'ass work?
I ask as I've always felt there are a certain few {if you will} that
scratch the so called 'one of kind' door or maybe even "genius
level" but I dont subscribe to theory of a 'genius' or their 'level'
unless the are really so "Cerebral" that they are almost beyond
their era {evan eons beyond} and this too is debatable..
Anyway I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.. tia thom_j.
| right now. I've worked pretty hard some years, not so much at other
| times, not nearly as hard as Pat, but I have not even come close to
| doing anything nearly as strong as what he was playing back in 1974.
|
| I play pretty good. I'm a good player. I know what great players sound
| like and I know I'm not great. At least not right now. I'm still working
| at it pretty hard as I begin to push 50, harder than I did for many of
| the past 30 years. If NLP could make me great I'd check it out but
| there's way too much ingrained scepticism (based on experience) in me to
| believe in anything like that. I would check it out just to see if there
| are any techniques that could make me a better musician but if someone
| tells me it will make me great I know they're full of shit.
| --
Joey Goldstein
"Thom j." wrote:
>
> Joey I never knew you even knew Pat Metheny besides studying
> with him but [to me] this does not make you any less or more of
> a good/great jazz, or anykind of, a muscian.
> My question is after seeing or being near a Pat Metheny, do you
> feel or see, looking back, anything particular different in a Pat M
> then others? Including yourself or is it just hard'ass work?
Call it what you will. Pat is (and was) very special.
Thom j.
I consider a virtuoso in classical music & more was/is "very
special" too.. I feel their are only the 'few' that go down this
path and this is why I asked you.. no more, no less...
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3C99758B...@nowhere.net...
Mark
Wow, That's incredably open of you to talk like that, i am new to this
group so i tread carefully as i tend to in life in general. But as i
said in another post information is information, how another chooses
to interpret that information and uses it is their responsablity to
themselves and sometime to the world as well. I am not saying that a
technique can make you great. i beleive that only "you" can make "you"
great. (they generic you's).
I notice you say you were extremely priveledged to study with your
teachers, Pat Metheney. Try this: every teacher is a student and
should seek to learn from ones students, obviously what a teacher is
aiming to learn from the student is different to what they are
teaching. In the same way they were priviledged to have you as a
student. As i am sure there are many things you could have taught them
about themselves and their playing if they had there eyes open.
and going back, maybe these techniques can help one follow a path that
you may find youself wondering from? i think yes. Maybe the people who
attain a high level of mastery think in a different way? One of the
great things about Neuro linguistic programming is in the last word
"programming". You can literally re-program you brain to think in
another way, and even better that doesn't stop you thinking in the old
way and even better than that you can choose how and when you use each
of these ways. This is why i am asking about modelling jazz musicians,
to help people learn to think in the same way that these people do. (i
am not saying this is easy) Even if the only thing they do is have an
level of determination that far exceeds anything the majority of us
can comprehend, ultimately they choose to do that.
One of my favourite stories i know is about the english guy who tried
solved
"Fermat's Last Theorem" which states that
xn + yn = zn (the n's are powers)
has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n >
this guy Andrew Wiles spend 25 years trying to prove this. Everybody
told him he was wrong he was taking the wrong approach to his work. He
delivered lectures to the top mathematicians in the world. Who told
him he was wrong and would fail
Guess what? he solved it. Wow, If he had questioned his ability he
would have failed, but no he was unrelenting to his quest. if he had
spent that amount of his life trying that hard and has never solved it
what would he have achieved?
My brother is a research scientist, where he works they actualy follow
there thinking patterns, each time they reach a problem they solve it
them go back to the problem and try and solve it another way, then
another then another, they then move foward to the next problem in the
path. Choosing a handfull of the solutions that look most promising.
the result is they end up with more than one solution to the problem,
which may be applicable in different areas. They have truly found a
solution to the problem. this is my approach also.
Do you think part of the reason why people stop themselves from really
commiting for extended periods of time is
"but i will have waisted my life if i don't succeed, what will i have
to show for it if i don't achieve that particular goal"
that is why i try to enjoy the journey of life and not spend all my
time thinking about the end result as for me that is what life is
about. If i never make any contribution to the world in a great way,
oh well, but at least i will have had fun trying.
Will i make any discovery's? Who know's, will i have fun trying? OH
YES, will i be happy with the end result what ever happens? Yes,
because i know i will have been trying doing something that may
benefit myself and others.
Kind regards,
Mark
Viviano, S. M. (Salvatore)
My "no magic bullet" comment wasn't meant for you. It
was meant more for some of the people who seemed to
be "flaming" you for what they perceive as an attempt to
find an "easy way out"
We *are* looking for an "easy way out" but we know it
takes hard work. :)
Also I think I might have mixed up my stories a bit. I went
home last night and tried to look up some of the things I wrote
about but couldn't find the reference. O'Conner did write
about a strategy the best music students all seem to share
when given the task of memorizing a piece of music they heard.
They adopted a particular posture, eye position and breathing
pattern. The basic thinking strategy was
Auditory external > Kinesthetic internal > Visual internal constructed
>
Auditory internal
Most people probably think this is an exclusively auditory activity
but the
best musician appear to approach it as a of synesthesia.
You seem to have taken this much further than I.
I would like to know more.
-- Sal
Joey Goldstein
Mark wrote:
>
> Joey,
>
> Wow, That's incredably open of you to talk like that, i am new to this
> group so i tread carefully as i tend to in life in general. But as i
> said in another post information is information, how another chooses
> to interpret that information and uses it is their responsablity to
> themselves and sometime to the world as well. I am not saying that a
> technique can make you great.
Well that's exactly what you were alluding to earlier in this thread and
that is the only aspect of your comments that I was disagreeing with.
> i beleive that only "you" can make "you"
> great. (they generic you's).
I agree with the above but with the qualification that you have to have
a natural aptitude for that which you are trying to do.
> I notice you say you were extremely priveledged to study with your
> teachers, Pat Metheney. Try this: every teacher is a student and
> should seek to learn from ones students, obviously what a teacher is
> aiming to learn from the student is different to what they are
> teaching. In the same way they were priviledged to have you as a
> student. As i am sure there are many things you could have taught them
> about themselves and their playing if they had there eyes open.
As a teacher myself I totally agree. But I don't know what this has to
with anything unless you're trying to make me feel better or something.
Don't bother. I feel fine. Pat is Pat and I am me and that's a good thing.
> and going back, maybe these techniques can help one follow a path that
> you may find youself wondering from?
Meaning NLP is good motivator?
> i think yes. Maybe the people who
> attain a high level of mastery think in a different way?
Obviously.
> One of the
> great things about Neuro linguistic programming is in the last word
> "programming". You can literally re-program you brain to think in
> another way,
I don't know anything about NLP but I have looked into other disciplines
that make similar claims. I always come back to the Popeye realization:
"I am what I am and that's all what I am."
> and even better that doesn't stop you thinking in the old
> way and even better than that you can choose how and when you use each
> of these ways. This is why i am asking about modelling jazz musicians,
> to help people learn to think in the same way that these people do. (i
> am not saying this is easy) Even if the only thing they do is have an
> level of determination that far exceeds anything the majority of us
> can comprehend, ultimately they choose to do that.
If 20 aspiring young jazz musicians adopt NLP techniques in the study of
their music and 10 years later only 1 guy is a really strong player on
the level of Coltrane say but of the other 19 guys 15 of them are merely
competent and playing in wedding bands and 4 of them have dropped out of
music but all of them claim that NLP was enourmously helpful to them in
their lives and that they are much happier having learned about it, did
that 1 guy really achieve so much more success because of NLP? That guy
was going to be a great player anyways. Any good life philosophy, all it
can do is make you happier with who you are and your place in the scheme
of things.
> One of my favourite stories i know is about the english guy who tried
> solved
> "Fermat's Last Theorem" which states that
>
> xn + yn = zn (the n's are powers)
>
> has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n >
>
> this guy Andrew Wiles spend 25 years trying to prove this. Everybody
> told him he was wrong he was taking the wrong approach to his work. He
> delivered lectures to the top mathematicians in the world. Who told
> him he was wrong and would fail
>
> Guess what? he solved it. Wow, If he had questioned his ability he
> would have failed, but no he was unrelenting to his quest. if he had
> spent that amount of his life trying that hard and has never solved it
> what would he have achieved?
If he really had an aptitude for ice hockey rather than mathematics then
he most certainly would have failed.
> My brother is a research scientist, where he works they actualy follow
> there thinking patterns, each time they reach a problem they solve it
> them go back to the problem and try and solve it another way, then
> another then another, they then move foward to the next problem in the
> path. Choosing a handfull of the solutions that look most promising.
> the result is they end up with more than one solution to the problem,
> which may be applicable in different areas. They have truly found a
> solution to the problem. this is my approach also.
>
> Do you think part of the reason why people stop themselves from really
> commiting for extended periods of time is
>
> "but i will have waisted my life if i don't succeed, what will i have
> to show for it if i don't achieve that particular goal"
Sometimes.
> that is why i try to enjoy the journey of life and not spend all my
> time thinking about the end result as for me that is what life is
> about. If i never make any contribution to the world in a great way,
> oh well, but at least i will have had fun trying.
At last you're talking sense. If you're not meant to be a great musician
you won't be. If you do have the requisite talent and you don't nurture
it you won't be either. So do something else. Unless being an average
struggling musician appeals to you, as it seems to in my case.
Paul Sanwald
>
>When I say "standard" I mean methods described in books such as Mark
>Levine's books /Joe pass books etc....(I won't make a long list bit
>you get the idea), what we are taught at music college etc. Methods
>that are widely taught to Jazz guitar teachers.
Actually, I don't get the idea. If you want to have a discussion about
moving beyond "standard" approaches, you have to define what you mean
by "standard". not provide examples and then generalize by saying we
must get the idea by now. If you are really researching this, you
really should define the methods that you have a problem with, before
trying to come up with something better.
The reason I'm asking is you seem to be under the assumption that
existing paths aren't in fact the fastest way to get better, and we
are in need of an alternative. in order to make this assumption you
have to at least define what existing paths you are talking about.
--paul
>
>
>When you talk about the practicing without an instrument. I agree that
>is a tool that is used by a lot of people. But what I am asking in
>this instance is do those people start by developing their
>representation systems to help the practice or do they let the
>representational systems develop along with the practice they do.
Stanley Jordan
> Hi All,
>
> I was just wondering if anybody in here firstly uses NLP themselves
> and secondly if they know of any books or work being done that uses
> NLP modelling to help learn jazz guitar.
Around 1983 a guy asked about my practice methods, and after I told
him he said some of my
answers were straight out of NLP. He gave me a couple of books on it
and sure enough, there was a lot
of common ground. This makes sense because a number of my intellectual
heroes were also influential
in the development of NLP, e.g. Fritz Perls, Gregory Bateson, Noam
Chomsky. Also, I was very much
into cognitive psych and computers, so I was familiar with the
"information processing" model of human cognition.
Since then I have read a lot of NLP books and I took a practitioner
training from Anne Linden
in New York. I feel that these tools, if taken only as tools, can give
useful results. It won't increase
your innate talent, but it can help you make the most of what you
have.
Here is a quick summary of some specific NLP concepts and techniques
that may be useful for musical development:
REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEMS - NLP teaches you to find the optimum balance
between visual,
auditory and kinesthetic information, and the optimum patterns of
sequencing between them. For example,
to memorize a musical passage, I take a mental snapshot of not only
the sound, but also the
feeling and perhaps an image. Players who have a lot of chops but not
much feeling might be over-utilizing the
visual, and need to tune in more to auditory and kinesthetic. Also,
you can split your senses for doing multiple
tasks. For example when I am playing multiple lines using the touch
technique, I might think more in sound
for my main line while I think more visually or kinesthetically for
the accompaniment parts. (I say "might"
because I don't always do it that way!) The point is that the senses
are somewhat independent, so you can take
advantage of that to do independent tasks. Incidentally, this is not
unique to NLP--this is basic cognitive psychology.
SMART OUTCOME - This is a series of questions you can ask to clarify
what you want and how you will
go about getting it. Very useful for developing a practice plan. The
questions include things like: How will you
know when you are achieving your outcome? Be sensory-specific: What
will you hear/see/feel?
This programs the goal into your unconscious mind, so it can be
working on it in the background, even while you sleep.
ANCHORS - These are stimuli that create particular responses. They may
be emotional responses.
For example, an image that creates a certain feeling which puts you
into the right frame of mind to play a
particular song or type of song. Or it might be as simple as
remembering one of your greatest gigs ever to
get you psyched just before going on stage. Or it could be a chain of
associations to help you remember the form of a song.
META MODEL - Language imperfectly represents experience--there is
always missing information.
The meta model shows you how to take a statement someone has made and
determine what type of information
is missing so that you can ask the right questions to get the speaker
to be more specific. For example suppose
whenever you sit down to practice you are plagued by an internal
critical voice that says "you should just give
up cause you suck!" In NLP jargon , this is a "lost performative"--a
statement of opinion that leaves out who
holds the opinion. You can challenge the voice: "I suck according to
whom?" Now we're getting somewhere,
because if the voice says "according to the critic from the Podunk
Times!" then you have something specific
you can deal with. For example, you don't need to base your
self-opinion on what some critic has said. Or you
can remember that your husband or wife absolutely adores your playing.
Or you can call the critic up and ask,
"How, specifically, do I suck?" You might learn something that will
help you play better.
The point is, it's much easier to react resourcefully when you have
more specific information.
STRATEGIES - Every brain is different. NLP techniques can help you
discover your own personal
best methods for learning, or being creative, or making decisions or
getting motivated. You can also learn
the optimum processes of other people so you can better communicate
with your bandmates or your audience.
MODELING - How to use another person as an example for achieving
excellence. We do this naturally,
but NLP techniques can help us do it better. For example, if you are
imagining being the other person, it's
best to go there with all your senses. It would be bad to see the
world through their eyes while at the same
time having your own feelings. If you switch back and forth between
being them and being yourself, make sure
you switch with all your senses.
FAST PHOBIA CURE - This can help you get over stage fright. The basic
idea is to create multiple levels
of dissociation so that the fear gets decoupled from the image of
being onstage.
These summaries are just the tip of the iceberg, but I hope they help.
I have some NLP-related links on my Web site at:
http://www.stanleyjordan.com/Links/ArtsHumanities.html#Psychology
Also, I have a page called "Introduction to NLP for Music Therapists."
You might want to check that out too.
http://www.stanleyjordan.com/Healing/IntroNLPForMTs.html
Good luck. I think you're onto something.
peace,
Stanley Jordan
www.stanleyjordan.com
Tom Lippincott
>From my point of view the desire to work that hard and the ability to
>actually do it are part of the "gift".
>
interesting point...that "gift" could also be looked upon as a curse, though.
>Your description of yourself is pretty spot on with my description of
>myself, btw. But you play better than me!
well one thing I have a pretty strong opinion about is that each of us is
probably the least qualified person to judge our own playing. I think you play
better than me, so there.
I guess I'll never know if I
>could have been a 'Trane. I get fatigued now after practicing 2 or 3
>hours a day, and Conan has gotten better lately.
>
heh; my favorite time was Andy Richter's last couple of years where the writers
got way over the top with things like the staring contests and gags like the
robot on the toilet. But yes, I agree the show seems to be making a comeback
after flagging somewhat for a while.
>I've always felt extremely privileged to have been able to study for
>that time with Pat Metheny, and those lessons were of prime importance
>in any musical successes I have had since then but the experience really
>fucked me up too. Here was a kid who was 1 year younger than me playing
>his ass off, touring with Gary Burton and rehearsing for his first album
>as a leader. I knew he was very very good. I knew he would be pretty
>successful. I figured he had just started working on jazz right from the
>start when he first picked up guitar and had not developed any of the
>rock n' roll short sightedness that I had developed. I figured that if I
>worked pretty hard for several years (Pat had supposedly only been
>playing guitar for about 5 years at that point) that I might be able to
>partly catch up and work on that kind of a level.
>
I had a slightly similar experience myself; during my first semester at NTSU,
Clint Strong was also a first semester freshman. He was at the time playing
rings around everyone else. I never studied with him, but I heard him play
around school a lot, and once even he played through my amp at a jam session (I
remember, after the jam session, writing down the amp settings he had used,
heh). While he may not have went on to become quite the important musician Pat
Metheny is, there was no doubt back then that he was a complete mother#$#@er
who "had something" that not many musicians do. For years afterward I compared
myself unfavorably to him.
>I had no idea he would become as successful as he has become. I had no
>idea his output would be that prolific. I had no idea that his
>compositional style and arranging style would influence popular music as
>a whole so much. I had no idea he would become as freaking good as he is
>right now. I've worked pretty hard some years, not so much at other
>times, not nearly as hard as Pat, but I have not even come close to
>doing anything nearly as strong as what he was playing back in 1974.
>
from some bootleg tapes I've heard I'd even say that in some ways he was
playing the best he ever played back then. As great as it is, I think Bright
Size Life only represents a fraction of what he, Jaco and Bob Moses were doing
at that time (and all this is based on badly recorded bootlegs I've heard).
Joe Finn
things and how we know what we know. This is germane to the discussion of
learning jazz guitar [or teaching it] and more interesting still due to the
broader implications.
"Mark" <Ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c989a6b...@news.freeserve.net...
>
> When you come across something you can't do you may perceive it as a
> talent, of course. But the angle i have been trying to get across is
> this.
>
> "If somebody asks me can i rock climb (which i can't) i don't say no,
> i say yes i just havn't learnt yet, how hard can it be? Fundermentally
> i can't see any reason why i can't. Could a be a great rock climber
> why not?"
You'll pardon me for saying so but that's kind of a "cute" answer.
Overlooking the attempt at cleverness for just a moment let me share with
you an expression we in music are fond of. The saying "performance is the
hallmark of understanding" is something a mentor shared with me when I was a
kid. This was in the context of a music lesson. I had convinced myself that
I had discovered something about the concept of Johnny Smith. I could play
one of his solos note for note. I thought I was as good as he was. My
instructor gently pointed out that Johnny's solo was improvised and that my
rendition while a useful and instructive exercise could never rise above the
quality of the original. Johnny was the master. I was the student. Johnny's
performance was spontaneous, original and perfect. It demonstrated his
complete understanding and mastery of the art of improvisation. My concept
was only just emerging.
Your answer to the rock climbing question is an ingenious play on words.
Music however [like rock climbing] is performance. Deeds not words.
>
> it is all about persceptions. You see you perceive perfect pitch to be
> a talent. Well i have some good news for you, You already have it,
> well you did anyway. There has been some recent research by linguists
> that has shown that children up to the age of about 2 to 3 ALL have
> perfect pitch.
Are you suggesting that all children of a certain age can name a pitch
without referring to a musical instrument of some kind? That is quite an
assertion.
>It is instrumental in learning how to speak/understand
> the language. Once you are able to speak you don't need it anymore so
> the skill is lost. But check this out- ALOT of people who speak
> languages where the pitch of the word actually changes the meaning of
> the word i.e mandarin have perfect pitch in later life. Also they have
> found that children who learn musical instruments from very early ages
> (before 3 years old) retain this ability. And therefore have a massive
> advantage when learning a muscial instrument.
>
> A great friend of mine has perfect pitch. he's said to me that the
> speed at which he was able to develop musically has been dramatically
> increased because of this skill. and this goes back to what i said to
> Sal in my last post:
> if you can develop the basics more efficiently then you can
> spend more time working on the more advanced concepts.
A good sense of relative pitch is something most musicians tend to develop
in due course. Perfect pitch is relatively uncommon even among accomplished
players. Most good musicians start out at an early age developing the basic
skills as you point out. It helps to be brought up in a musical household.
It helps to be surrounded by supportive adults and good instructors. It's
nature and nurture not one or the other. A little talent helps but this is
overrated. The work ethic is very much more important. The ability to take
the long view is important. Putting the music first and keeping it there is
a key ability. Most good players have found a way to bring enormous
dedication to their endeavors. It's beyond diligence and hard work; closer
to obsession maybe. ....joe
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Joey Goldstein
Tom Lippincott wrote:
>
>
> from some bootleg tapes I've heard I'd even say that in some ways he was
> playing the best he ever played back then. As great as it is, I think Bright
> Size Life only represents a fraction of what he, Jaco and Bob Moses were doing
> at that time (and all this is based on badly recorded bootlegs I've heard).
Ever hear the record he did with Paul Bley? Jaco might have been on it
too. I forget. It was a long time ago and I have not heard it since. I
thought it was pretty heavy at the time. I thinks it's called Fooloose.
And I don't care what you say, you're still better than me! <g>
Thom j.
there are so many ways of study & I really dont know what his
or anyone's definitive definition of "standard" is?
Mark
Standard = music related practice
Non Standard = Looking at other areas e.g. linguistics or NLP etc and
seeing if any of the techinques they use, in for example speech
development, could also help to develop you musicality? Then trying to
apply these ideas to music in some way. There is alot of research
done in medical research which has biliions of $ spent on it. I think
is there any cross over between the precise area it is focused and
others. (I am not goiing to go into all the relations i can see that
may be revelevent because it would take me too long)
>The reason I'm asking is you seem to be under the assumption that
>existing paths aren't in fact the fastest way to get better
Of course i am saying that..... isn't the reason that we don't live in
caves anymore down to the inate fact that the human race has always
said "maybe there is another better way" then gone ahead and found it,
surely this is the basis of evolution. This is also the reason why
music has developed and changed through time because people try
something new, isn't that what musical Giants have done, they have
said you know what i think there is something else out there that
nobody has heard before and i am goiing to find it
Surely nobody can say they have the best way because i would lay a
large bet that somebody else will turn round and prove that infact
there is a better way. If you can say one way is the best way then as
i said before
give me some carpet i will kneel at you feet and pray ;-)
>and we are in need of an alternative?
Lets ask this question, of course this is hyperthetical:
If i could provide you with a PROVEN way that would increase your
musicality to four times what it is now in a 6 months would you use
it?
If the answer is no then........................................
If the answer is yes, then you do.
you see as in so many things in life when something new comes along
(not that i am saying i have something new) people are always very
slow to accept it, you know the whole earth revolving round the sun (i
think somebody was killed for suggesting that rediculous idea), oh and
what was that the world wasn't flat thing ( somebody definately got
put in jail for that outrageous untruth) and what was that story of
the young guy who had a cymbal thrown at him because nobody liked what
he was trying to do (just in case anybody hasn't heard that story it
was Charlie Parker) didn't he define a great deal what alot of people
in here are trying to do to a greater of lesser degree
Regards,
Mark
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:29:15 GMT, pcsa...@pobox.com (Paul Sanwald)
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:20:41 GMT, Ma...@nospam.com (Mark) wrote: