Do I Think Too Technically During My Guitar Solos?

[ksjazzguitar]

...The general consensus is: "if you have to think about it, you can't do it." That just means you have to be trained so well, that it's natural, and not an intellectual process....

It just sounds odd because it is the exact opposite of what many of us have experienced. You seem to live in a vortex of anti-intellectual zombie players - or at least guys who think it is hip to pretend to be.

Maybe part of the problem is the definition of "intellect." It doesn't have to be just math, science, and logic. As I mentioned before in a similar thread, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences specifically lists musical intelligence. (Scientists no longer hold to your narrow and outmoded definition of intelligence.) But you seem to think of "intellectual process" as an insult. I think that if your friends were being honest with you (and themselves) that you'd find out that there is quite a lot of thinking going on, unless of course you use an extremely narrow (and ultimately useless) definition of "thinking."

Again, most of the guys with whom I play (ranging from intermediate to advanced) will proudly talk about what they were thinking about or trying to do at various points in their performance. The same is true for other art forms - painters, writers, improvisational dancers - their all thinking on some level. True, they aren't thinking about the rudiments, but they are thinking. Since I started hearing these "anti-thinking playing" arguments, we've talked about it on breaks and whatnot - I can find no one that doesn't "think" (and quite a lot) while playing. At many of the clinics and masterclasses that I've attended over the years, one of the most common questions is "What are you thinking about while you are playing?" I've never heard the answer, "Nothing." Quite to the contrary, they usually have a long list of things they are thinking about.

Personally, I find that playing takes a great deal of concentration and focus. I find the process of playing to be mentally tiring. (I'm not doing any crossword puzzles or reading Joyce after the gig.) If only I had access to a PET scanner, I could prove it, but alas, that's a bit out of my price range.

But if you want to believe that great playing can only come from brain-dead, anti-intellectual, zombie playing - then I can't stop you. But realize that there are many of us who find that to be an insulting image what we do. Again, I don't think that the point is to think of nothing, the point is to focus on and think about the correct things. You practice so well that you don't have to be distracted by worrying about the basics. But that's not the same thing as "not thinking."

I think that if these people were truly "not thinking" then there would be write-ups in medical journals because that would be one of most incredible discoveries in medical history - that humans are capable of advanced processes without expending any brain-power.

Which is why music is always analogized with language....The goal is to know a lanuage so well that you need no mental buffer(ie that I don't have to hear something in French, put it in English, think of an English response, and then put it back in French). When people are having trouble playing, its usually because they are doing this process...

Right, but what you are talking about is analogous to the mechanics of playing (which may be what you meant.) If I'm in a conversation, and someone asks me what I thought about the motivations of the villain in the movie we just saw, I have to think of my answer. It doesn't matter if I am speaking in my native tongue or not, I still have to think. True, if I am trying to translate at the same time, that gets in the way. The goal is to think directly in the target language. But "thinking in the target language is still thinking. Jazz is a musical conversation, and as such requires a lot of thinking, just like any other sophisticated conversation.

We all seem to agree that you need to ingrain the mechanics of the language. But some seem to be arguing that you can shut off your brain at that point and have a conversation (musical or linguistic) without any thought going on. Even if it were a monologue (musical or linguistic) I still think that it will be better if the person is thinking about the meaning of the words (notes) and how they relate to each other instead of just mindlessly spewing them out. There is a lot of thought going on.

Peace,
Kevin

[TBrady]

Having read all of your responses actually tells me that I am on the right track in that I am relentless in studying the fingerboard (scales, arpeggios, etc.). It is helpful hearing your suggestions on new ways of practicing these things. Your sharing on varied thought processes while performing is enlightening and just what I was looking for! Thanks!

[TBrady]

And oh yes Gumbo, thanks for 'sharing' your credentials!

[Reg]

Here's a quote from Kevin..."I think that the point is to practice the technical stuff (both physical and mental) so that you don't have to think about it when it is time to be creative. I always tell my students, "We practice scales so that we can forget about them - if we are thinking about scales, we aren't thinking about music." I'd say this is true of any "technical" aspect of playing."
And another one...
"I think that a little bit of technical thinking is healthy, but obviously if it gets in the way of creativity, then it is a problem."
Now here's Cosmic Gumbo...
"Many say that if you have to think about it, you can't do it."
I could go on... but it seems that Kevin and Cosmic and the rest of us all agree... if thinking gets in the way of playing, (creative process)... anyway if your thinking process gets in the way of your playing, we all appear to call that a problem. And we are talking about actually playing, not before or after.
We all seem to have different opinions of when that thinking gets in the way... Which is a direct relationship to our level of musicianship, our cogitative abilities and how we deal with them... I would guess were all average at best...once we get over our egos. So it comes down to how much time and how organized is that time you put in.
Most of the really talented players I've gig with, Bob Mintzer, Gordon Goodwin, Eric Marienthal, DelbertBump, Tom Scott and most of the great players here locally in SF Bay Area, don't appear to have to think much, as I said before, they think or they play, one in the same... I try and cover in same manor...
If your having a problem with thinking while playing, then you need to clear up your understanding of what your playing, if your having a problem with your playing while thinking, then you need to clear up your playing of what your thinking... I don't think you need understand everything to understand a thing... wow ...one liner heaven
Best Reg

[orasnon]

Interesting argument! I'm personally more inclined to agree with Cosmic Gumbo on this...and there is nothing "anti-intellectual" about what athletes refer to as "the zone", or what Zen Buddhism denotes as an ideal state of mind ironically called "no-mind." It is something that transcends the western-oriented bifurcation of reason/unreason - perhaps an "excluded middle" that many artists talk about - "stream of consciousness", or abstract expessionism's approach to non-linear art. Perhaps this is what improvisers refer to when they talk about "not thinking"...

[Shadow of the Sun]

TBrady: a word to a wise. Simply dismissing an old, established member of a forum you're on? Not a good way to get yourself settled in.

I'm going to agree with Gumbo and Orasnon in that while you're thinking while you're on the bandstand, you're not thinking in the same sense that you are while you're practising. It's...different, a different kind of thought, born out of focus. Indeed, it probably fits best into the psychological category called 'flow'; where you ARE thinking, but time seems to just...stop...and such.

It's hard to explain.

[ejwhite09]

Right, but what you are talking about is analogous to the mechanics of playing (which may be what you meant.) If I'm in a conversation, and someone asks me what I thought about the motivations of the villain in the movie we just saw, I have to think of my answer. It doesn't matter if I am speaking in my native tongue or not, I still have to think. True, if I am trying to translate at the same time, that gets in the way. The goal is to think directly in the target language. But "thinking in the target language is still thinking. Jazz is a musical conversation, and as such requires a lot of thinking, just like any other sophisticated conversation.

Peace,
Kevin

Yes I'm talking of the mechanics, that's the part you should have down ingrained...where a scale falls on the fretboard, all these things you shoudl not have to think about when you play. When you're having that conversation, you are only thinking about your response to the situation, you are not first having to think about definitions or what is a verb or where it goes in the syntax.

What I am saying is and I think what the quotes mentioned are getting about is you should make the fundaments the grammar and vocab as second nature as possible so that you can save the active thinking for what you should be actively thinking about, how to apply them in the current situation.

[ejwhite09]

"I think there for I am" I mean if you're not thinking essentially you are dead. I think the OP is trying to divine the level at which jazz guitarists are thinking as they play. IE...I'm not thinking when I play ok the dominant is coming up let me play a Dimished arp over it landing on the seventh which is the blah blah blah of the next chord, Ill use the major scale chormatically to ascend through the next change. I'm not thinking like that when I'm playing.
To me that is like thinking through English to speak French. When I play I am thinking of ryhthm, the changes, the atmosphere, honestly I am actually thinking very little of my actual playing(which is the biggest change thats resulted from my study over the last year, that im focusing less on what im playing because i have the confidence that comes from internalization, I used to spend all my time trying to hit the right note, now its natural to me where to go and where to be) im thinking at the level of the bands sound...which is what I think we're trying to get over to the OP, you should practice until things are so automatic that you're not thinking about your playing, but how its sitting in the band.
Just like a conversation, Im thinking about what I'm saying in relation to what you've said. I'm not thinking about what I'm saying to make sure I'm using the words that I want to use, because the language is so engrained in my mind, unless Im using a new word or trying to parse my words(and that is what i hear a lot of players doing parsing their playing), then my speech is fluent.
Practice so when you play you are phrasing coherent lines(or sentences). Don't parse your playing, thats how you end up sounding like a rambling circus with a few moments of listenable music.
If you do not prepare adequately and ingrain the fundamentals in your soul you will always be hindered. the point is, the trick, the secret, the way, the light, holy grail, the path that we are all on, the balance we all try to strike is ingraining enough in you so that your creativity isn't hindered by your lack of mechanics, without becoming slavishly dependent, the ones who achieve this are usually called masters.

[ejwhite09]

It's hard to explain.

lol obviously since were all doing such a bang up job. But I think we all agree on what needs to be done to 'get there' we all have different ways. the OP will have to find his own way, but essentially bottom line I think we all agree, you gotta sit down and take some time and just beat some stuff into the fabric of your being. But its hard to express, a very personal experience and how I or you or anyone else including the OP comes to internalize music is very personal. Lets face it learning music is very wax on wax off. you spend a lot of time doing a lot of stuff that you see in no way being relevant or helping you rock out and then one day you're sitting there jamming, hell you may just be in your own living room and you're gonna hit a lick and you're just gonna be like 'damn that was hot.'

It'll happen OP we promise yah.

[ejwhite09]

I really think the vast majority of us have to think to some degree.

I think it comes down to how good your ear is. To truly play what you hear...

Well that would be the equivilent of very very quickly transcribing a Charlie Parker solo without using your instrument as a reference. Just the first note given as a reference, some manuscript paper and a pencil, and a recording of the music. Like transcription tests in ear training class.

How many can do that? I'm sure some can, but I can't. It's a goal to strive for, for most it will never be reached.

I try to always be aware of the form and the chords. I'm getting to were that just becomes automatic which I think is a good thing. So I never completely let go, I'm always trying to be aware of those two things.

I also think this is a very good point, no two ears are alike. Take an interval or chord test online, and get very honest withyourself about where your ear is, and then take the time to build it up. You gotta be able to hear it to play it. I have a lot of friends and students who played guitar for years you know just as a hobby just campfire and bedroom or maybe did a little rock or pop band, and its amazing how many of them have bad ears and have never had ear training. I knew a guy could shred with the best of them, if he had the tab or was shown, couldn't play by ear to save his life, put him on an ear training program in six months he was one of the most in demand players in town. So just like a fight, find the weakness and attack it relentlessly. You've been playing so you probably have a lot of strengths and only a few weaknesses holding you back identify them and destroy them my man.

[TBrady]

Wow, my question created quite a stir! 'Can't we all just get along?' Seriously, I am not a basket case when it comes to improvising and I am happy with my chord melody stuff, (better than I could have hoped for way back when). That's what gets me the modest amount of gigs that I do get. I think I need to do more jamming with other musicians. That is something that has been lacking due to time constrains, I can't apply the stuff I've studied until I, well, until I apply it! Cosmic, I do see the value in your comment re: thinking vs: playing. Excuse my sarcasm! Again, ALL of your responses have been great and enlightening to me. Terry (AKA TBrady)
After having read Shadow's comment this edit was added: Shadow, I'm not dismissing Cosmic, I have my way of expressing myself just as everyone else does. Please don't lecture me re; 'word to the wise'. 'Stop' indeed!

[ksjazzguitar]

I could go on... but it seems that Kevin and Cosmic and the rest of us all agree... if thinking gets in the way of playing, (creative process)... anyway if your thinking process gets in the way of your playing, we all appear to call that a problem.

Yes, but some seem to be saying that all thinking get's in the way of creativity. A statement like, "Many say that if you have to think about it, you can't do it." is clearly implying this, even if it was put passively into the 3rd person.

Most of the really talented players I've gig with, Bob Mintzer, Gordon Goodwin, Eric Marienthal, DelbertBump, Tom Scott and most of the great players here locally in SF Bay Area, don't appear to have to think much, as I said before...

Perhaps, but there is a difference between appearances and reality. I was teaching a chess class last week and one of the students commented that when I was playing that I did not appear to be thinking - I seemed cery relaxed. Well, of course I was. Being relaxed is not the same thing as not thinking. When I'm reading a book, I may be very relaxed and enjoying myself, but I am often thinking deeply.

Additionally, there is the "show business" aspect of music. I think that entertainers try to make things look easy. No one ever says, "Yeah, he's amazing, he makes it look so hard." No, making it look easy and effortless is part of the mystique. Additionally, when you get accustomed to certain thought patterns, it gets easier to do them without looking "strained."

...I'm going to agree with Gumbo and Orasnon in that while you're thinking while you're on the bandstand, you're not thinking in the same sense that you are while you're practising. It's...different, a different kind of thought, born out of focus...

But that is disagreeing with Gumbo. He's saying that there should be no thinking. Even if you are "not thinking in the same sense," you as still thinking. But I agree that you shouldn't be thinking the same way in the practice room as on the bandstand.

...What I am saying is and I think what the quotes mentioned are getting about is you should make the fundaments the grammar and vocab as second nature as possible so that you can save the active thinking for what you should be actively thinking about, how to apply them in the current situation.

Definitely. The point isn't to enter some zombie, non-thinking state, but to ingrain the basics so that they are intuitive and you can focus your attention on the musical expression.

But if creativity just becomes some automatic, involuntary, thoughtless process - then I'm not sure if that is something in which I would want to participate. Fortunately, most of the truly creative people I've been blessed to know say the exact opposite, so I think that I'm safe.


And some people have mentioned "flow states," etc. It's been a while since I read Csikszentmihlyi's "flow" theory, but I don't remember anything about "not thinking." I remember it as being defined as a period of focused concentration and lack of distraction. Emotions and thoughts are focused on the objective and there is an unawareness of things like time, hunger, etc. I may be wrong, but I don't remember anything about "non-thinking" being the goal. I seem to remember it being about relaxion, focus, lack of distraction, and being in the present.

Peace,
Kevin

[Jazzaluk]

This thinking about thinking is far too technical. Is this performance thinking or just practice thinking?

Anyway, I heard if you have to think about thinking then you can,t really do it.

[TBrady]

I think thinking is way overrated! I'm thinking about giving it up for New Years.
But, I'll give it some thought first!

[cosmic gumbo]

You seem to live in a vortex of anti-intellectual zombie players - or at least guys who think it is hip to pretend to be.

You are putting words in my mouth, how do you come to that conclusion? You are twisting simple statements into some academic nonsense. What is your agenda?

[jayx123]

IMHO I think we all think of creating melodies while improvising, how to create those melodies / the tool we use should be internalized so we don't think about it, it should just come out to help create those melodies.

Some times we need to think not to think (suppress ) of the technical stuff when it interferes with what we really need to think about (creating melodies) .

[Reg]

OK....here's an example of how my thinking process works, what little I have left in the thinking Dept. Last night I played a gig where there were charts and arrangements for everything... very boring, I really don't remember thinking... all sight read...everything, and I don't really call that style of soloing a thinking process. Well I can carry on a conversation, check out visuals, think about what ever while playing... all very "mechanical"... obviously if I didn't read well I might have too work a little more...
Tonight i have a solo gig for three hours in Larkspur, local hang. I'll probable play from memory unless someone wants some tune i don't know and I'll either fake it or pull out fake books... so a little thinking going on... not much. I don't separate my playing from my thinking... I have better gigs through the weekend, much more creative, where the music can actually go somewhere that isn't worked out, and I better be thinking/playing or I'll miss where ever the music is going... which does happen to many musicians. Many musicians do miss those moments, because their level of musicianship is not together... I usually don't... and I'm simply one of many working musicians... I'm a good player, there are many better... but I trust my musical instinct and don't require a separate thinking process to play... I'm sure there are other working musicians who function differently... I'm simply trying to give example of how I play jazz... not practice, play... Hope helps... best Reg

[TBrady]

Reg, definitely, very helpful, thank you. Terry B

[ksjazzguitar]

You are putting words in my mouth, how do you come to that conclusion? You are twisting simple statements into some academic nonsense. What is your agenda?

I don't need to put words in your mouth, you did. And I'm not sure what you mean by "academic nonsense." "Nonsense" is "nonsense" regardless of it's origins. And frankly, if it's nonsense, it's not academic. Again, this is indicative of your anti-thinking bias and your seeming distrust of academics. But since you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, let's examine your own words:

Many say that if you have to think about it, you can't do it.

Except for a ridiculously meaningless hyperbolic platitude, I can't imagine what this means. True, you've put it into a nebulous, anonymous third person plural (a common rhetorical technique to avoid responsibility of a statement) but it was your statement on the subject and you left it as the only statement on the subject. One is left to infer that it reflects your view on the subject. Why would you relay someone else's opinion (without qualification) if it didn't reflect your own? So, really you are saying is, "If you have to think about it, you can't do it." This is confirmed by its consistency with many anti-thinking posts that you've made in the past.

Sorry, I was talking about on the bandstand performing, ... The OP was talking about problems improvising, I assumed it related to performing, not sitting in his living room practicing.

Rereading the OP's post, I don't see that. I understood it to be the entire process. I guess to me, much of my practice time is spent performing, and I don't really draw as much of a distinction between the two. To me, with the exception of mechanical practicing of scales, etc., most of my time practicing is spent playing. True, my "practice playing" is a little different than my "performance playing" in that I am thinking a bit more about fundamentals, etc. But for me there is far more overlap between my practicing and my playing than you seem to imply is true for you.

But fair enough.

...that's the consensus [not-thinking while playing] I get from the majority of the performers I play with and know.

...I play in a big band, and several combos, with many trained musicians, some union pros, some professional music educators. Then there's the musicians I know that I don't play with. Guess what? The general consensus is: "if you have to think about it, you can't do it." That just means you have to be trained so well, that it's natural, and not an intellectual process. ...

OK, exactly my point. This is your "vortex of anti-intellectual zombie players." I'm not sure which word you object to. "Vortex" is clear enough. And you're clearly building an "anti-intellectual" argument, so it must be "zombie." OK, so I took a little poetic license, but one of the common definitions of "zombie" is someone who acts without thinking - exactly what you are describing.

So it seems that you've taken some informal poll and gotten the exact opposite results that I see. When I talk to musicians about what they are thinking while they improvise, they are quite comfortable telling me that they are thinking about a lot. And as I mentioned, when I go to clinics and master classes, one of the first questions asked by the beginners is "What are you thinking about when you are playing?" Usually there follows a long explanation. Not once have I heard the answer "I think about nothing." True, they are not thinking about "Hey, what notes are in an Eb Dorian?" But there are plenty of other higher-level things to think about. They are clearly not "not thinking."

So, that brings me to a decision since this so strongly contradicts what you are saying, there are only a few ways to reconcile the two:

1. You never really did your poll (formal or informal) and are making up your data to fit your agenda.
2. Your friends are lying to you or to themselves.
3. You by some strange randomness, live in a musical community where by chance only non-thinking musicians live.
4. By random chance, I live in a world surrounded by pro-thinking musicians. This seems unlikely as I've played all over the country and in 6 years on the cruise ship I played with literally thousands of musicians from all over the world. (We got bored a lot and talked about things like this for hours.) True, there were maybe half-a-dozen people in your non-thinking camp, but for some reason they always seemed to be 20-year-olds from Toronto - go figure.

Those are the only logical possibilities that I can see. Since I know that 4 is highly unlikely (because of the large sample size) and 1 would have been insulting to you, I chose to go with number 3 with a soupcon of number 2. If you can provide another possibility, please do so.

It would be like if someone said, "That's the consensus I get from the majority of the people I know - chocolate ice cream tastes terrible." Really? What am I to think about that when my experience of people's feeling on the subject is the exact opposite? I might assume that you live in some parallel universe where everyone hates chocolate ice cream. True, I'm sure that I could find a few, but it certainly is not the norm.

Again, I suspect that at heart there is a disagreement about the definition of "intellect." I believe it was to you on an earlier thread that I'd tried to explain that "intelligence" is no longer just thought of as math and logic. Psychology has expanded it to include things like body movement, interpersonal relations, and even music.


Just so we're clear, he's a partial list of some of your other anti-intellectual statements, often just snide one liners thrown as monkey-wrenches into other people's intellectual discussions:

• "If it doesn't make sense, it must be jazz...."
• "Whew! I heard that the jazz police almost went on red alert!"
• "Has academia overcomplicated learning bebop to the point that it can't really be explained in a nutshell? Too many experts, too much confusion."
• "It's [bebop] about the math."
• "There are too many jazz guitar books with conflicting methods, and approaches. At some point too many books will confuse you. This year I'll be throwing a few on the fire to take the chill off when it turns cold."
• "I used the Slonimsky book for a while when I was younger, but when I got taller, I didn't need to stand on it to reach the cookie jar."

True, you do sometimes make some interesting posts, but you also never seem to pass up an opportunity to throw your anti-intellectual vibe in the middle of people tying to have an intellectual discussion.

This is not to mention your many absurdist (presumably funny) comments after serious questions - again, usually snide one-liners:

• On a thread on using tension: "On the last song of a gig, a real tension builder that I use, is to tune up my high E string slowly until it is under so much tension that it breaks. Great way to end the night..."
• In a thread on tonics: "I subscribe to the gin and tonic system of improvisation. While the tonic is very important, the 5th of gin is what really makes you sound better."
• After a question about chord triangles: "Has anyone ever played the triangle at Burger King?"

Those aren't the least bit helpful, but can be seen as attempts to disrupt the dialectic of others and to mock the discussions being had. Personally, I found that most anti-intellectual jibe to be when someone posted a link to a discussion of brain-scans and creativity and you posted a picture of a Homer Simpson brain. I suppose you think it was funny, but I saw it as mocking the subject of the thread, part of an overall pattern that you have. Someone tried to post a link to something very interesting (to those of us who like thinking and intellectualism) and the first response was a mocking of it.

Again, you go to a lot of trouble to stake out an anti-intellectual position. Can you please tell me what words I put into your mouth? I may have reworded some, even hyperbolically. I may have made inferences off your statements to take them to your logical conclusion. But I'm not aware that I put words in your mouth. I don't have to put the words in your mouth - you scream your anti-intellectualism from the rooftops, with impish glee.

I get it, you don't like thinking. You distrust academia. But some of us like thinking and academia. Why do you feel the need to inject your anti-intellectual dogma into every intellectual discussion? It's gotten to the point where every time I see that stupid Alfalfa picture, I have have to brace myself for a possibly yet another anti-intellectual salvo, often just as a snide one-liner. True, I'm sure that when people see my photo, they brace themselves for a long-winded, pompous, over-intellectuallized, opinionated screed, but I'm at least trying to be constructive. I don't see how your snide one-liners could be seen as constructive.

Peace,
Kevin

[wizard3739]

ksjazzguitar,

I get it, you do like thinking. You trust academia. But some of us don't care much about thinking and academia. Why do you feel the need to inject your intellectual dogma into every discussion? It's gotten to the point where every time I see that your response to a comment, I have have to brace myself for possibly yet another intellectual salvo, often just very dogmatic. True, I'm sure that when I see your response, I brace myself for another long-winded, pompous, over-intellectuallized, opinionated screed, but at least you may be trying to be constructive. I don't see how your snide long-winded "intellectual comment" could be seen as constructive when it obviously not constructive when you tear into and find only fault with people's comments. I used your words for my comments because I could not possibly make this comment as well as you might. It is not my intent to insult you or argue with your approach but rather a perhaps simple attempt to wake you up to what some of us may think of your approach to this seminar. Your knowledge is undisputed and appreciated by me and many others, but your approach, IMHO, could be improved.

wiz

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I skip over long replies with multiple quotes from previous replies. Life is too short!

[orasnon]

As an academic by trade, I feel a slight tinge of traitorous guilt as I say this....but sometimes it is easy for academically-oriented people to over-analyze things. Maybe this is happening on this post, maybe not...but I understand why people are turned off here...My friends and family remind me of this constantly

At the same time, it is intellectually lazy to simply shrug off someone's comments as "academic nonsense". Heavy jargon may be off-putting to some, but a reflexive dismissal of such types of discourse precludes the possibility of a deep understanding of things we often take for granted.

In the activity of art, I don't think the mind is ever "turned off" - however, I do feel that, when one is lost in the rapture of producing art, it is not the same thought processes that characterizes "thinking" in our everyday encounter with the world. Indeed, some theories even believe that percipients of art (not simply producers) are in a different state of mind (e.g. "aesthetic distance" theories) when they take in a work of art. If spectators experience "no thinking", then surely the performer experience something different as well??.....

[ksjazzguitar]

...But some of us don't care much about thinking and academia. ...

How can someone not care about "thinking"? What is a forum but a way to share "thoughts"? I can understand someone not liking "academia," (I think that it is misguided mistrust based on fear, but I understand it) but "thinking"? How is that even possible? Until they find away to transmit emotions and feelings across the internet, I'm going to stick with expressing thoughts.

I am not "injecting" my "pro-thinking" dogma here - the questions was about thinking and thought process. It is in the correct context. If I brought it up in a discussion about pickup wiring, that would be injecting.

I don't see how your snide long-winded "intellectual comment" could be seen as constructive when it obviously not constructive when you tear into and find only fault with people's comments.

But if there is fault (IMHO) should we just ignore it? No, that is not the nature of a conversation.

In the activity of art, I don't think the mind is ever "turned off" - however, I do feel that, when one is lost in the rapture of producing art, it is not the same thought processes that characterizes "thinking" in our everyday encounter with the world. ...

With all due respect, I feel that this is an overly romanticized version of the creative process. When I read biographies of artists (Miles, Picasso, etc.) I get a different impression. I would agree that we would find that something different is happening (flow state, alpha waves, etc.) but that there is still conscious thought going on. Most of the conversations that I've been lucky enough to have with artists have confirmed this.

I skip over long replies with multiple quotes from previous replies. Life is too short!

Perhaps. I actually do the "mulitple quotes" as a courtesy, to make it clearer how the conversation is flowing. I think that that is easier to follow than quoting the entire post at the beginning or not quoting at all. But they are long, I'll give you that one - I wouldn't blame someone for not wanting to read them.

Peace,
Kevin

[cosmic gumbo]

Welcome to the jazz factory.

[Dad3353]

I only come here for the 'Gumbo-isms', and I'm getting better at 'Catfish Strut' (although my version lacks the tuba...).
The next poor OP asking for reading material is going to get a recommendation from me for Mickey Baker, Jody Fisher and Mad magazine (not necessarily in that order...). Acedemia has its place; so does fantasy (Lewis Carroll, anyone..?). If we (or at least some of us...) can't insert a touch of light now and again (ok, sometimes a bit tasteless on my part...), but never venomous, then I think it's a poor show, chaps. I'm not on a permanent diet of Monty Python, but some apparently facetious comments can be somewhat deeper upon reflection (once you get the straight-jacket off...). Just an absurd thought...
Cosmic for President..! (of what, I'm not so sure...)
(falls clumsily from the soapbox and limps back into the shadows, thinking darkly...)