|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
posted November 10, 2015 03:33 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Well, I was talking about the reason they wrote that, not that it isn't entertaining, there's also an element of antiquity and monotony in it that doesn't let people enjoy it usually.
Also, I knew you would say that, all I said is with the definition of entertainment that I think is what most people define it as.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 03:51 PM |
|
|
You confound again classical creators with the metal muezzins you enjoy so much the screaming and show. The goal of a creator from the classical era is not to entertain others, but to express and build through technical processes, in the most total loneness -because this is how is done, its feelings and visions. That is applicable to all form of classical artists, painter, sculptor, writer. What happens after with his finished work, isn't part of creation process.
The fact that you speculate about a possible and anticipated relation where the artist has to try to present complex things in a simple manner, so even a person without specific cultural background can comprehend, remains only a speculation. The artist doesn't give a snow if you understand it or not, he will not lighten or simplify his language because he fears lower audience, that's rather a XX century tendency. Its up to you to make the effort, if you think it is worth.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 03:52 PM |
|
|
In the other post I quoted what Bach himself said about why he wrote and played music. "Recreation of the mind" is just another phrase for enjoyment, and if I enjoy something it's not far-fetched to say I'm entertained.
As long as it's a "pure" entertainment (purely spiritual and not physical) they had no problem with it. They would DEFINITELY have had a problem with handclapping and moving the body while singing or listening to the music, still it qualifies.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 04:09 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
You confound again classical creators with the metal muezzins you enjoy so much the screaming and show. The goal of a creator from the classical era is not to entertain others, but to express and build through technical processes, in the most total loneness -because this is how is done, its feelings and visions. That is applicable to all form of classical artists, painter, sculptor, writer. What happens after with his finished work, isn't part of creation process.
You should read what Bach has to say to it, before you put artists on a pedestal and away from their audience. Also, Bach had a JOB and was payed for playing (at start), and playing he could. He was a payed musician and his contempories didn't care much for his compositions - they were too serious for them.
EVERY artist in the world wants to entertain because an artist needs feedback. Artists want to be acknowledged; of course they want to be acknowledged for their art - for THEIR art, that is, for their way of filtering or prism-breaking reality, their feelings and ideas and in applicable cases their (original) ideas and methods to express themselves.
Quote:
The fact that you speculate about a possible and anticipated relation where the artist has to try to present complex things in a simple manner, so even a person without specific cultural background can comprehend, remains only a speculation. The artist doesn't give a snow if you understand it or not, he will not lighten or simplify his language because he fears lower audience, that's rather a XX century tendency. Its up to you to make the effort, if you think it is worth.
That isn't what I meant, and that isn't what I said. What I said is Quote:
The REAL art - and that is MY opinion - is to let complex and intricate things APPEAR simple
I even capitalized APPEAR. An APPEARANCE of simplicity doesn't equal simplicity. Examples are easily found in literature. A lot of Hemingway's stories, say.
What you should consider in all this is the fact that the so called classics could indeed give a snow about understanding because there were not many "important" opinions anyway.
Either that - or they don't care about anything much at all, and that is the point where genius and insanity meet. Van Gogh hasn't exactly been a mentally sane guy.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 04:36 PM |
|
|
At this point, I have no idea what we talk about, anyway we are no longer in same tune it seems. I was unease with your "entertainment" definition, because (at least in the languages I speak) it defines a quick distraction, something done exclusively to make laugh. Or this doesn't fit at all with the content of any classical creator, where the dramatic content is predominant. It is not fun to go through the 3 hours of a Matheus passion. It may be revealing, it may turn into some mystical experience, it may change you or your views, but in no way you come out from that Tantalus experiment joyful and light. It is a testing challenge, every time it happens.
So I don't know why the details about Bach playing and enjoying came and what they were supposed to demonstrate.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 04:51 PM |
|
|
Wow, Hard to believe so much has been said.
I don't see anything about music or ART in general being able to defined by any single word. Entertainment? Not a chance, music can be entertaining like "The Busy Bee" by Askey but in my mind that is amusement. Many words come to mind...like novelty. "Something different" has always driven rebel creativity and I've known folks that care about the "statement" of something done more than anything else. You know, like; spite or rejection.
MY poems or songs run (ideas)in a parade of various purpose. So if a lowly peasant like me does this I'd imagine the "gifted/cursed" might have a larger arena of thought. (It could also be a drugged-playground)
And as far as Worship, for me and many others it's is better defined "connecting" i.e. with the others, self, God, oneness and on and on. One word cannot do justice to human-communication in any form to any purpose.
Amusement matters too.(kindergarden) Finger-painting is fun, whether you are painting paper with paint on your fingers or are more interested in actually painting your fingers.
Another word is often behind things but still cannot begin to define anything a human does in the way of communication-art. Escape.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 05:02 PM |
|
|
Entertainment is any form of enjoyment, but obviously, it doesn't have to be "light" in nature, because some don't enjoy light stuff and get bored. So watching/hearing/reading something very serious is still enjoyable for some, and when it is, it's entertainment.
Keep in mind, they coined the phrase INFOTAINMENT - a method to provide information in an enjoyable, interesting way.
In his book Johann Sebastian Bach Philipp Spitta quotes him, saying about the purpose of his music: Quote:
... und soll wie aller Music Finis und End Ursache anders nicht, als nur zu Gottes Ehre und Recreation des Gemüths seyn
Translated: "It's supposed to have the same purpose as all music, and that is to God's honor and for the Recreation of mind." "Gemüth" is and old form of the German word "Gemüt". It is a word that means the emotional part of the mind as opposed to the rational, intellectual part.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 07:11 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:06, 11 Nov 2015.
|
JJ, I am aware that you're using the word "entertainment" in a rather unusual and broader fashion, but it's obvious from my context that I'm not. There is a difference between a New Orleans band playing When the Saints Go Marching In and Charlie Parker playing Cherokee, just like there is a difference between Twist & Shout and A Day in Life. As Galaad puts it, of course, I enjoy Mozart or Charlie Parker just as well and what I experience is not a feeling similar to going to a conference when I hear them. What I was on about was this though, as genres mature, more layers and sophistication develops because people who create them (and usually also their audience) want to surpass themselves, sometimes not intentionally I might add. One genre's criteria of sophistication may not be the same as the other, in terms of Classical criteria, both Twist & Shout and A Day in Life are extremely simple songs. But, in terms of what the artist intends, what he aims to achieve, while one has the intention to only "entertain" the other is more about expressing deeper emotions about... well, a day in the life and what it inspires. This doesn't happen only on an individual basis, because musicians learn from other musicians' work. Once you have lyric writers such as Dylan out there, people will start to write different words than "oh yeah, hold me tight" and they did. Things will evolve. But there will always be a demand for simpler stuff (not stuff that appears simple, I agree on that part, that kind of simple is an achievement and a hard one), there is nothing wrong with simple stuff, as Orzie nailed it perfectly, there will always be an animal part within us and there is no reason to close our ears (pun intended) to it. However, what I agree about with Sal is, in this age where music is also a huge market, some genres take a rather shallow direction and exploit that aspect of music in a very "fast-food industry" fashion. It sells faster, it's easier to produce and replicated stuff without much taste or innovation just fills the shells. I'm pretty sure there are many music out there, that when you hear, you just go "sigh" also and you have your -not so absolutely subjective- reasons about it.
Maybe, we should bring in the word crude or shallow, because when it comes to some sub-genres, my dislike about them (with an open-mind to exceptional works) is not about simplicity, I can enjoy some folk song composed by an illiterate peasant or something such as Rock Around the Clock as long as I sense something genuine about it. But the more music becomes about a circus mentality, and since the mid 20th century, with the market discovering that teenagers are the perfect target audience with their boiling hormones and their angst, I think gradually, the more some genres turn into some kind of a shallow sham. I feel the sham when I hear it.
I'm almost 40, I still enjoy listening to Deep Purple or early Rock and Roll or even stuff like Rage Against the Machine, (the latter two don't feel like they used to though  ), but a lot of my friends who loved stuff like Death Metal or Punk as teenagers gradually shifted away from them. Sure, they go back to their albums out of nostalgia every once in a while, listen to their favorite song as a kid again etc, but that's just about it. Not all genres age equally well, when we broaden the perspective, why are there many young people still discovering Jazz from the 1940's but not as many discovering Doo-Wop from the 1950's? Why did Disco had much less impact than Blues to other genres? I think that's because the Blues, although simple in harmony just like Disco, was not only about selling records and it was actually meant to reach people with a more genuine touch.
I'm aware there is a certain level of subjectivity to what I say which is clearly unavoidable, and even your generation determines a lot. I'm also aware that when it comes to popular music, selling records matters and is always a significant parameter whatever the genre. But it's not just that subjectivity that molds my opinions. Things are comparable to an extent.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 09:11 PM |
|
|
Ok, let me say I'd like to find some common ground here. While it looks like we are at odds ("we" meaning not unly us two, artu), I don't think we are.
I'd like to have a look on virtuosity in playing an instrument and composing on that level, and I'd like to raise the question whether virtuosity is a necessity for art to become art. For this purpose I'd like to direct everyone's attention to something I think everyone will acually ENJOY (be entertained by), and that's Paganini's Caprice No. 5.
Paganini doesn't need explanation, I think.
Now. Let's start with this.
Man, she can play - or can she? She plays a Paganini composition - what does her play tell you about the composition? Virtuosity, yes - but my impression is, she doesn't really understand what she is playing. Or struggles.
Then we have this. In my humble opinion, he lets Paganini sound like a wanker. All too-fast-played notes for the sake of playing fast. Imo, he's butchering it.
And we have this one, and, Christ, that's the real deal. Precise. Lightyears ahead. Masterful rendition. However:
I think the beauty of the composition becomes apparent when you watch this (interestingly): Guitar beats violin
Although her rendition isn't without mistakes. Still - it's different dimension. (Of course Paganini played guitar as well.)
Of course there is a modern take. Caprice no. 5 features in the Crossroads movie - a story about the blues legend Robert Johnson selling his soul to the devil for the gift of virtuosity (which Paganini was rumoured to have done as well; after all David Garrett starred in The Devil's Violinist not so long ago). Steve Vai is playing all guitar here (the good guy is faking it). Pretty awesome, how he's botching it.
Lastly, I'm writing this listening to this stuff.
All great stuff - all pretty virtuous.
Question: If Paganini would have been born in 1970 - what do you think he would play?
|
|
orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 09:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If Paganini would have been born in 1970 - what do you think he would play?
Pretty sure he would play guitar. The music - well, it can differ.
I've met a lot of opinions about Bach put in the same situation and becoming an icon of hard rock.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 09:59 PM |
|
|
Agree about Paganini. Would play the guitar and excel, Vai-like. Have a ton of groupies. Would also compose the same stuff than Vai.
Bach - I'm not sure. I consider myself a failed mathematician, basically, and naturally Bach featured high on my radar ... Randy Rhodes like... 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 10, 2015 11:08 PM |
|
|
Among the violin versions, I agree that the third one is the best.
I don't like Steve Vai, if I remember correctly, we've talked about this earlier right in this thread, his kind of Rock just sounds cold and based on the pointless kind of virtuosity to me. That's why, although I like that movie (Crossroads), the finale had no effect on me whatsoever. It was supposedly be this awesome performance that closes the deal, yet, to me, it was Vai's playing that sounded "all too-fast-played notes for the sake of playing fast" and it kind of killed the point of the film's narrative, since it was a very different kind of mastery a blues guitar player should have delivered in the end. If also for that scene, they had stuck with Ry Cooder who had done rest of the soundtrack, I imagine he would have come up with something actually interesting and tastefully raw and bluesy. Nothing chokes the feeling of blues worse than that -vewovewovewo- type of playing. Among players I've heard, only Stevie Ray Vaughan can sometimes get away with it.
Paganini born in the 1970's becoming a Progressive Rock player doesn't seem so far fetched, I don't know. It would have been a genre where showing-off with instrumental performance can get you places. I don't think I would have liked listening to him in such a case though, when it's done with electric guitars, I find that approach especially obnoxious. Strings have a different vibe.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 12:38 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Strings have a different vibe.
A really good one. 
Is anyone really doing anything progressive with horns today?(love the French horn) Years ago, I remember an effort to take them mainstream into rock/pop(which I couldn't stand) with bands like Chicago or a mostly obscure group called Chase. I know Tull added a flute but that's reed and more akin to strings to my ear.
With all the gadgets to play with today, anyone breaking ground with Brass?
Btw, for long years now I've wanted to "play Light". You know how bands have added Light to their shows forever. Well, instead of having computerized electronics pick up the music and display Lights, what if bands had an additional member that played
"The Key-board of Lights"? = Notes/Chords attached to different colors of the rainbow.
I thought of it after becoming ill and broke. Maybe someone make one day.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 01:03 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:06, 11 Nov 2015.
|
Well, horns are everywhere in electronic music if it's funky or if it involves acid jazz etc, but not many Rock bands use them, I guess. Cant say I'm alert all the time for new stuff out there. There is this electro-swing by guys like Parov Stelar which I quite like, taking swing tunes from 1930's and so, using them as samples and rearranging them with electronic background, it really fits.
The only thing I really like from Chicago is that song which goes "25 or 6 to 4" and horns blend in quite well. Chase, I havent heard.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 03:54 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Guitar beats violin
At what, record duration?
A merciless comparison, taking a great virtuoso than comparing to some pretty student struggling to achieve power and play all notes. That you like it, fine, not every one ears are fully functional but that it beats THAT violin, not this time.
There are some great guitar virtuosos of Mintz stature, at least find someone who has the raw force and delivers some serious punch, this is what Paganini needs in first place.
I checked the other interpreters by curiosity, allow me a few remarks. The Lee korean girls is playing really good, I wish European conservatories could produce this quality of musicians and technicians. I don't agree that she is not understanding what she is playing, Paganini is not Kafka neither, she just lacks powerful personality when compared to next version, this is visible through her placid concentration, rigid corporal attitude, not taking much liberties and such very subjective things. Yet I checked google and saw she won the Paganini famous competition, and this you don't make it with only robotic skills. But whatever.
Markov is a fantastic violin player. To those being ignorant about violin techniques, it may indeed look like he is botching it, but this guy has steel balls and is the only one, out of three version, to play it the way Paganini asked for, ricochet. Basically this means he is playing 4 notes per bow attack, instead of 1 as Mintz. Now to explain this, imagine you throw a plate rock on a water surface and EVERY TIME you throw it, it must create 4 ricochets instead of just sink in. Due to physic laws, it happens the same thing as with every solid corpse, the first impact produces a heavy sound then with every next ricochet will fade out. Thus the impression of lack of homogeneity, but again, this is what Paganini asked for.
It seems faster but if you compare with a metronome, you will see Markov tempo is in fact slower. However the thing is incredibly well done, considering that the difficulty is also multiplied by at least several times. Ricochet still remains somewhat the ultimate challenge for a violinist. For info.
Of course, the only fragile and scholar interpretation between those four examples remains the guitarist girl. Because of the constant brakes she has to put at every phrase end -due to visible technical limitations, it sounds like a poetic rubato and can fool more than one.
But when put aside the other three, it suddenly sounds colorless and powerless.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 07:59 AM |
|
|
artu said:
The only thing I really like from Chicago is that song which goes "25 or 6 to 4" and horns blend in quite well. Chase, I havent heard.
Agree, although I would add Color My world as well.
My best friend at the time played in the school band and was nutz about having Brass/rock. I did a search and was surprised to find some Chase but it seems he had his fans too. I suggest advance to a 1 1/2 minutes to hear the full band. The first part flatly assaults my ears.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 09:00 AM |
|
|
@ Sal
I know you are a sucker for virtuous playing, but I didn't know you'd really fall for virtuousity for virtuosity's sake.
Now here's my take.
The girl plays the thing on a different instrument and to play it in "Paganini mode" she would have to use a plektrum and strike each string with it which is the way Steve Vai plays it in the last piece (of course). Instead she uses all her 5 fingers, 1 finger for each string, allowing her a different kind of control, "cheating", if you want to, transforming it into something different. For playing it that way (not without struggling) she actually allows for the MUSIC to take the stage - that is, the composition -, and not the PLAYING (not that it would be easy to play). She shows that you have actually a piece of music worth listening to and not just long line of notes played for the sole purpose of showing superior playing skills
That is one reason I took this example (it's about virtuosity): Paganini was a PLAYER, more than anything else, and for me it's obvious his composing was a vehicle and a showcase for his playing skills - this is demonstrated by Markov who embraces that approach whole-heartedly, putting playing over composition.
Mintz does it differently. Now, I don't know him good enough to know whether he plays it this way because his technique isn't good enough to give at a go in Paganini style or whether it's a real decision, but what he does is presenting a piece of music, not showcasing superior playing technique. He SERVES the music.
The Korean Girl is in-between. Again, I don't know her in any way, so I can't say anything with any amount of certainty about her, but she's striking the middle, so-to-speak. She doesn't throw herself into it as wholeheartedly as Markov, but tries to find some middle ground - maybe as a result of the "humble" asian way, I have no idea. But in the end she isn't serving the music as well as Mintz and not showcasing as Markov, so the rendition, so it's somewhat flat (on a very high level).
(We don't need to talk about Steve Vai - no one better to play Paganini on an electric guitar, because he is what Paganini would have been today, which is where artu and I agree (all too often he plays difficult stuff for the sake of playing difficult stuff - although I have to admit that he has his moments when his compositions match his playing skills and he doesn't go overboard with antics).)
The issue is viruosity, and in my opinion it doesn't actually matter how Paganini wants it to be played, because as a composition and arrangement are two different things - as is the playing style.
Paganini is - was - Paganini, and he was free to play everything the way he liked, establishing himself as "the fastest bow in the West" so-to-speak, and that's all fine and well, and there is certainly a market for "being fastest" and so on, but music is NOT about demonstrating superior control of an instrument (although it helps). When music is used as a vehicle to prove the genius of the one playing it, then the music is abused and not played for the sake of the music which I find a tad disrespectful.
I find it interesting that you do seem to have a liking for Paganini, because I don't doubt for a moment that the glittering world of rock music - sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll - would have seen him battling it out with the likes of Vai for who was the best axe in the world.
Anyway. The problem with "uncontrolled" virtuosity is the difficulty to create the music that profits from unparalleled playing skill. It's not enough to play SOMEthing that other players would have difficulties to recreate - it also must be WORTH playing.
Going back to letting something rather complex APPEAR simple (and hoping that this following piece may somehow help you see there is worthy stuff out there in this world of electric nonsense) as an example of not demonstrating superior skill, control and style but using it to create something rather unique and beautiful.
Try this
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 09:52 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
@ Sal
I know you are a sucker for virtuous playing, but I didn't know you'd really fall for virtuousity for virtuosity's sake.
No idea why do you think I fall for virtuosity sake. You gave your opinion on that guy playing too fast, then butchering the work, I showed you that is not the case. He doesn't skip any note, he plays slower than the other, and he is the only one to respect Paganini instructions. But this doesn't put him higher or lower, there are way other parameters which play before the bill.
Also, JJ, what do you think it happens during a violin, a piano, or a singing class? 95% of the class duration, technical details are discussed, the score integrity is discussed, the style integrity is discussed, because this is how you make music, becoming skilled and learning to read it properly. Is not coming from thin air. All those "intellectual " details will be fully ignored once on stage, but they remain the foundation of every serious artist.
JollyJoker said:
For playing it that way (not without struggling) she actually allows for the MUSIC to take the stage - that is, the composition -, and not the PLAYING (not that it would be easy to play). She shows that you have actually a piece of music worth listening to and not just long line of notes played for the sole purpose of showing superior playing skills
Because Shlomo Mintz doesn't show the piece is worth listening? Then I can only invite you to listen again, until your are stroked by the difference. 
JollyJoker said:
That is one reason I took this example (it's about virtuosity): Paganini was a PLAYER, more than anything else, and for me it's obvious his composing was a vehicle and a showcase for his playing skills - this is demonstrated by Markov who embraces that approach whole-heartedly, putting playing over composition.
So, whats the point then? You admit that Markov plays it the way Paganini would have done it, but finally you find him the weakest from all, and the most exhibitionist. While I don't say he is better than Mintz, just that his approach is more courageous, and he delivers admirably. What makes you think in Markov style that he puts himself in first place, over the composition? And what would be wrong in that, aren't all the electric/metal artists you admire playing same kind show? Wasn't Paganini in first place a show man? Who created the one show man concert? Paganini, then followed by Liszt.
Quote:
The issue is viruosity, and in my opinion it doesn't actually matter how Paganini wants it to be played, because as a composition and arrangement are two different things - as is the playing style.
In classical area, it matters. This is not some improvisation you pull out on stage, people learning to play this or other of composers try to do it the proper way. The respect towards composer intentions makes is essential. Then, if one is enough genius to slip and take a personal way, it is fortunate, but first he had to slowly chews same ingredients, as everybody. Genius doesn't come from thin air neither.
Quote:
but music is NOT about demonstrating superior control of an instrument (although it helps). When music is used as a vehicle to prove the genius of the one playing it, then the music is abused and not played for the sake of the music which I find a tad disrespectful.
This is the attitude I dislike when listening to modern styles, like rap, metal, electric and such. This people skip a lot of details in music just to put their show skills in first place. But I won't say I am right to dislike it, its just a matter of personal preference and cultural approach. You said art is for entertainment, some people may find very entertaining to listen to someone challenging the technical limits and physical possibilities. It is full part of the game, we find it in artistic sports as well.
Quote:
I find it interesting that you do seem to have a liking for Paganini, because I don't doubt for a moment that the glittering world of rock music - sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll - would have seen him battling it out with the likes of Vai for who was the best axe in the world.
Paganini music is very beautiful and expressive. There is a "look what I can" part in it, but it doesn't stop at that. His guitar compositions are admirable as well. Then he is the obsession and the nightmare of every violinist out there, impossible to skip it if you rub their race closely. And this is what I do, daily.
Quote:
Try this
I will, thanks.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 11:48 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Because Shlomo Mintz doesn't show the piece is worth listening? Then I can only invite you to listen again, until your are stroked by the difference.
Yes, you are right.
I went too far trying to make a point (which was, by "cheating" around a difficult technique the music itself takes centre stage, not its delivery, but of course Mintz does that as well which I even honored in that same post ).
When you "try this", you'll see (hear) that he has a different approach (and maybe it helps when I tell you that he is the kind of artist I really appreciate - the kind that tries to create a unique distinctive sound; technical ability is all nice and well, but I like a purpose for it, and that purpose can only be found in the music the technical ability creates. I do NOT like playing fast for the sake of playing fast. There are a few seconds in that song where the guy shows that he CAN play fast (and indeed I could link you to amazing stuff by him), but with him it's obvious he doesn't do it for the sake of proving he's a master or something).
You may not believe it, but I was actually a sucker for Bach - no wonder considering I've studied mathematics, but I listen to music with my heart more than with my head, and at the end of the day I just love the guitar way more than any instrument that has keys, I love the things you can do with an electric guitar, and I love rhythm (which doesn't have to be a dumb 4/4, bass drum banging on each of them). That's why I like a good Flamenco, for example (guitar and rhythm and sometimes a nice voice), so that's that.
Also, I'm not a general "Metal" fan - you might say I like everything that is subjectively likable for me, the difference being that some genres simply give me more likable stuff than others.
You may not know, for example, that like an occasional Sinatra song, a piece of Glenn Miller and even a Bert Kaempfert melody (nothing like Bert Kaempfert playing in the background with a candlelight dinner, trying to create a sense of wunderfully romantic nostalgia). Consequently, there is also "classic" stuff I like. I do definitely NOT like classic Operas in general, musicals neither, but of course there ARE exceptions from every rule, say, Carmen.
What I want to say is, that for me - as was for Bach - music is for the recreation of the "Gemüt" - the emotional mind - and while the rational mind may be able to analyze and classify and rate things (and likes to do so), I doubt that it makes actual sense.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted November 11, 2015 01:27 PM |
|
|
artu said:
That's why, although I like that movie (Crossroads), the finale had no effect on me whatsoever. It was supposedly be this awesome performance that closes the deal, yet, to me, it was Vai's playing that sounded "all too-fast-played notes for the sake of playing fast" and it kind of killed the point of the film's narrative, since it was a very different kind of mastery a blues guitar player should have delivered in the end.
I very much agree with this. That last sequence does not show what makes the blues the blues, which is basically the I-IV-V cadenza with dominant chords and how you play with note functions in your solo to make it sound. It's that switch of the third major from the tonality becoming minor on the IV which makes it hear it and is when you play that everyone agrees the blues just entered the door. If there is not this starting point, I don't find it very representative. IMO a simple three notes motif being played only on change of degrees would have nailed it better, then of course he could have showed off from there.
JollyJoker said:
I listen to music with my heart more than with my head
We all do, however if you decide to seriously study the art, putting your head at work is mandatory.
Classical musician will have to read extremely intense partitions and a professional will grasp the soul of the piece already at first read, playing it directly with at least a minimum of involvement. Jazz musician has everything in his head and when he improvise it is billion of hours of practice on specific cadenzas, scales, passing lines and so on that sees the day as well as a profound and clear understanding of what he's doing, it's not “divine inspiration”, and nothing is being done at random (or you can roll the dice, but that's at your own risk). Anyone with a minimum of sensitivity (so pretty much anyone who will be moved by listening certain pieces) will feel when he plays and express the notes and only then mathematics transforms into actual music. Virtuosity is not only about playing fast, it's about mastering your instrument, any good virtuoso is able to fully express himself through the most simple sheet, filling the partition with its soul.
Simply put, one needs the other, and then you realize how much is yet to be done a lifetime is barely enough.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
