Do I Think Too Technically During My Guitar Solos?

[TBrady]

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:



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.



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.





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

Just to clarify what I said regarding the musical environment for which I was questioning my thought process. It really is at home 'shedding wood' on 'single string' solos - as I pointed out I a am a solo act and typically play 'chord melodies' for my first set (a genre I feel good about). I then play various other things: sing some standards and soft rock. So single string improv is not something I do on 'the bandstand'! I reached out to this forum for advice (which I gratefully received) regarding that approach to playing jazz. The reason I waxed sarcastic to Cosmic regarding his comment was the lack of context and yes, as you pointed out the distance he put between himself and his comment visa vi the reference to anonymous third party(s). Like all of you I have worked hard for many years to be a good player and the comment was rather unpleasant to read after daring to admit what I consider my 'weakest link' to a new forum, particularly since it included no context, qualification or any constructive element. But, I stand by my apology for my sarcasm! Thanks Terry B.

[ksjazzguitar]

Welcome to the jazz factory.

You see, that's what I mean. I have no idea what that means. Except to be a snide one-liner to try and mock the people that disagree with you. If you're going to mock the people that disagree with you, then have the courtesy to do it over 3 pages, like I do.

...The reason I waxed sarcastic to Cosmic regarding his comment was the lack of context and yes, as you pointed out the distance he put between himself and his comment visa vi the reference to anonymous third party(s). Like all of you I have worked hard for many years to be a good player and the comment was rather unpleasant to read after daring to admit what I consider my 'weakest link' to a new forum, particularly since it included no context, qualification or any constructive element. ...

I will assume that cosmic is sincere and that he felt that the comment (and all the others like it) was making a helpful point. I disagree, but I will assume that he is sincere in his belief that thinking hinders the creative process. Perhaps he thinks that his ironic one-liners are the best way to deliver his point. If the statement "Many say that if you have to think about it, you can't do it" is meant as hyperbole, then I could sort of accept it, but to be taken literally, it sounds ridiculous to me.

As to your baring "weakest link" link, more power to you. We all have things on which we are working. And don't think that this little mini-argument reflects on you. There are a bunch of large "personalities" on here (including myself) that have little debates in various threads.

Ultimately, what I should do is track down some quotes from pros in interview talking about what they do think about when they play. I should have some time next week, maybe I'll look into it.

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

God good man, your writing is worse then your music.

[ksjazzguitar]

God good man, your writing is worse then your music.

Really, specifically what? What is wrong with my playing and what is wrong with my writing? Or are you just being a troll?

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

oh, it's all so droll ...

[TBrady]

Ultimately, what I should do is track down some quotes from pros in interview talking about what they do think about when they play. I should have some time next week, maybe I'll look into it.

Peace,
Kevin[/QUOTE]

Kevin, it would be interesting to see what these players think about the question we are discussing.
Thanks, Terry

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Welcome to the jazz factory.

This.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

Ultimately, what I should do is track down some quotes from pros in interview talking about what they do think about when they play. I should have some time next week, maybe I'll look into it.

Peace,
Kevin

I'm sorry I attacked your music and writing...I am a troll, it seems. Here's thinker's quote for you, to make up for it.

"You're just sort of searching for this "thing" and sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't. All music is imperfect, but in jazz since you're improvising, at least the way I play, I'm trying to follow my train of thought in a solo."
-John Abercrombie

[TBrady]

Definitely. When I hear a statements like, "As Herbie Hancock and others have said you study and steal everything you can the forget it and play." I don't think that that is saying to tun into a non-thinking zombie onstage. I think Herbie (and many others) are saying that stealing licks is good, but to absorb them and then try to create your own thing. I don't see how that quote is the least bit relevant to the question of whether or not people are thinking onstage. I suppose he (and others) would give the same advice about the technical minutiae of playing - think about it in the practice room, not on the stage. You want to be thinking about resolving your b9s and guide tones in the practice room so that it gets absorbed into how you hear and you don't have to think about it on the gig. But that is not even close to the same as not thinking about anything.

I think that there is this romantic notion of the artiste that he is merely a conduit for this divine expression. For some reason we like to think that this is some sort mindless activity, as if that increases the "holiness" of it. Why do we think that "thinking" somehow dirties the process? We see this myth perpetuated in movie after movie. Just look at all the crap that people think about Mozart - you could write a whole book debunking the mythology around that one person, much of with is this same "anti-intellectual" vibe. I don't know why we seem to have this need to de-intellectualize our artists and their process.

Peace,
Kevin

Yes, my understanding of improvisation is playing something that I already know, but, in a different way (hopefully with a few moments of profound creativity). I have and still do work hard on scales, arps as well as memorizing licks. I do value the academic aspect, which has been self taught (or limited, in the formal sense, to private lessons and a few elective music courses in college). Re private lessons, I have been blessed with the opportunity to have studied with Joe Monk and Billy Bauer, (Long Island guys, but, quite accomplished) may they RIP. What I get from this discussion is that I need to place myself in the musical environment (more) that is under discussion (as I mentioned early-on my soloing is in a practice setting not on the 'bandstand'). And of course I continue to recognize the absurdity and impossibility of 'not thinking' of 'SOMETHING' during ANY moment of consciousness. My initial question wasn't; should I THINK or NOT THINK? It was a question calculated to get a feel for the balance of the technical and artistic mindfulness of other musicians as they improvise. Gratefully, I have been provided with useful insight along those lines during this discussion. Thank you all!

[ksjazzguitar]

Welcome to the jazz factory.

So I guess cosmic leaves us to interpret this on our own. Once again, painted in the corner, he retreats to snide one-liners.

But if I take this quote to mean that I am trying to enforce of process of jazz on everyone (some cookie-cutter factory) then it is changing the subject. The discussion was not how should creative people think, but how do creative people think. Again, I'm trying to be descriptive, not proscriptive. I'm not telling people how to create - if this zero-thought, no-mind creative process works for you, then go for it. But I disagree that this is a common approach - born out by testimony of many professionals. I simply challenged what Cosmic was saying, that he had some anecdotal evidence to support his views since it so diametrically my anecdotal evidence, which I consider to be quite a broad sampling. Hopefully I can back it up with some actual quotes, if the university library is open next week.

But Cosmic, if you aren't going to accept responsibility for the words that come out of your mouth, then what is the point. If you are just going to hide behind snide, non-sequitous, one-liners when you get challenged then why even bother chiming in? I mean, if you don't take your words seriously, then why should we? Yes, I posted a fairly lengthy screed attempting to document your anti-intellectual position, but that was simply trying to respond to your charge that I was putting words into your mouth. I was trying to show that I wasn't. And you still refuse to explain your insult. You accuse me of rhetorical malfeasance and then get offended when I defend myself. I guess it's easier to play the victim and hide behind cryptic one-liners. Maybe someone can explain to how that is not being a troll.

I'm sorry I attacked your music and writing...I am a troll, it seems. Here's thinker's quote for you, to make up for it.

I don't mind constructive criticism, but I don't see how that was helpful. Thanks for the apology (a rare thing on the internet) and thanks for the quote.

...I have been blessed with the opportunity to have studied with Joe Monk and Billy Bauer, (Long Island guys, but, quite accomplished) may they RIP.

Lol, you say that as if those are unknown people. I'm jealous. But my point was that maybe you might consider some lessons with some people that play very differently from how you now play. Or even another instrument.

My initial question wasn't; should I THINK or NOT THINK? It was a question calculated to get a feel for the balance of the technical and artistic mindfulness of other musicians as they improvise.

I think that we all agree that the less you think about technical aspects the better. The goal is not to have to think about technical things consciously, or at least on a very background level. The more bandwidth you free up for creative and aesthetic thinking, the better. (Although some seem to define this as a not-thinking process, something with which I still disagree.)

Peace,
Kevin

[TBrady]

The less technical thought the better, I agree and that case has been made quite well! I feel good about my progress and evan more optimistic as a result of this discussion. A contentious debate can be very productive! I see an analogy to politics here; some say they want to see the Dems and the GOP more bi-partisan, frankly that would scare the .... out of me, because that would amount to them colluding together against 'we the people'!

[ejwhite09]

I think that we all agree that the less you think about technical aspects the better. The goal is not to have to think about technical things consciously, or at least on a very background level. The more bandwidth you free up for creative and aesthetic thinking, the better. (Although some seem to define this as a not-thinking process, something with which I still disagree.)

Peace,
Kevin

Like if the OP is looking for a balance, I'll say this if you're expending more than 5% of your computing power on technique, you're doing it badly. If you're expending less than 90% of your computing power on creating music you're doing it badly.

I think Kevin is kind of hung up semantics on this one. I don't think anyone is calling this 'non-thinking' but maybe the term active and passive thought can be used to better describe. I think the other posters are trying to say they aren't actively expending thought at this moment that they are passively thinking(weighing the balance of their music and the musical context). As opposed to active thinking where I'm literally saying in my head 'ok here comes a ii-V.' I'm never thinking in my head 'here comes a ii-V' when I'm playing. I know what a ii-V sounds like, I know enough music to recognize when it's coming up in context, and I know a few licks and methods for playing through it. This process is automatic...or nearly so. And the more automatic you can make that process that better you will be. In my experience the best players aren't the most technically gifted but those whose technique is suffient enough for them to respond to musical context almost automatically. Because they have made as much of their musical thought process as near to automatic as possible. This can be described as some sort of 'zone' which to me is simply an area of passive thought. When I ace a final and I'm flying through it, its not because im not thinking and just answering blindly but I have studied and prepared so well that my thinking need only be directed to eliminating bad choices.

[Jazzaluk]

My initial question wasn't; should I THINK or NOT THINK? It was a question calculated to get a feel for the balance of the technical and artistic mindfulness of other musicians as they improvise. Gratefully, I have been provided with useful insight along those lines during this discussion. Thank you all!

TBrady ... I had no problem understanding your question ... Your simple, straight forward question was just hijacked and turned into pseudo-intellectual posturing. It happens, but it seems to be more common lately. Glad to see you extracted something from all the BS.

[ejwhite09]

A contentious debate can be very productive! I see an analogy to politics here; some say they want to see the Dems and the GOP more bi-partisan, frankly that would scare the .... out of me, because that would amount to them colluding together against 'we the people'!

Of course that assumes that they are already both colluding against we the people, and whats the material difference between them colluding together or apart, its aggregate result is the same, no?
It's a connection to politics in that everybody has figured something out for themselves and now is convinced that their way is the way for everyone.

[ksjazzguitar]

...I think Kevin is kind of hung up semantics on this one.

Unfortunately it is the only way to understand what people are really saying. With so much hyperbole and poetic license, it can be hard to divine what people are meaning.

I don't think anyone is calling this 'non-thinking' but maybe the term active and passive thought can be used to better describe.

Well at least a few are saying that "non-thinking" is the way to go. If you want to use the terms "active" and "passive" thinking then that kind of works for me. I was kind of using the idea of "background" thinking in the sense that you are using passive.

As opposed to active thinking where I'm literally saying in my head 'ok here comes a ii-V.' I'm never thinking in my head 'here comes a ii-V' when I'm playing. I know what a ii-V sounds like, I know enough music to recognize when it's coming up in context, and I know a few licks and methods for playing through it. This process is automatic...or nearly so.

If I understand your terminology correctly, then to me, I would say that the technical details of physically playing are just automatic (picking, finding the note that I want, etc.) The simple technical aspects of the musical playing (what is a ii-V, how do I play it, etc.) are also entirely automatic. The more advanced (and creative) aspects of the musical playing (call and response, building an interesting intensity arc, using interesting rhythms, listening to the other musicians, etc.) that is mostly passive thinking, but I usually chose to focus on a few of them in an active way to do them better. Again, I think that if you are strictly passively thinking about every thing, then I question if you are truly in the moment. Some claim to have this Zen, no-mind state, but again, I think that this is mostly a Romantic notion about what artists do and I can't seem to find it in the writings of real artists when they talk about being creative.

Again, some of this may be tied up in this old fashioned notion of what "thinking" is. Some seem to still equate it with math and logic. Like I've said, if you're thinking about the mathematics of scales, then you aren't thinking about music.

And the more automatic you can make that process that better you will be. In my experience the best players aren't the most technically gifted but those whose technique is suffient enough for them to respond to musical context almost automatically.

I distinguish between physical technique and musical technique. Of course the physical technique is how to play the scales, arps, sequences. The musical technique (on the simple level) is how to navigate guide tones, resolve dissonance, etc. Classical composers are always talking about the technical aspects of composition. (And for the record, they do think when they compose.)

...This can be described as some sort of 'zone' which to me is simply an area of passive thought. When I ace a final and I'm flying through it, its not because im not thinking and just answering blindly but I have studied and prepared so well that my thinking need only be directed to eliminating bad choices.

Yeah, I don't think of the "zone" or "flow" as being "not-thinking" (as some have stated.) The point is that you are intensely focused and you are not distracted. You are intensely in the moment and nothing else matters. The point is that you are thinking as clearly and on topic as possible.

They just had something on NPR about measuring people having epiphanous thoughts and trying to measure the brain activity as it would happen. I wont get into the details, but what they found was right before the person had the epiphanous thought in answering a word puzzle, there was a rise in alpha waves in the brain (associated with deep relaxation) and that they could often predict when the person was going to have the realization by just watching the brain waves, sometimes 8 seconds in advance. That kind of supports this notion of "different" thinking going on. One might equate that alpha-wave state with "zone" or "flow" and that it may actually be a quantifiable mental state. But they are still thinking, they are just more relaxed, receptive, undistracted, and focused. Perhaps for some this feels like "not-thinking."

I've looked for a link, but I can't find it. I'll check again later, gotta get ready for a gig.

Peace,
Kevin

[Flyin' Brian]

My son, who is a drummer had a discussion with Jeff Tain Watts in which another pretty famous drummer was the subject.
My son said "I can hear what he's thinking, but I can hear what you're feeling". Big difference.

[Dad3353]

My son, who is a drummer had a discussion with Jeff Tain Watts in which another pretty famous drummer was the subject.
My son said "I can hear what he's thinking, but I can hear what you're feeling". Big difference.

Always trust the drummer to get it right first time. It's all so simple, really...

[TBrady]

Nikole, I agree, I for one have never been under the delusion that playing creatively required a state of mindlessness. I have been in a 'zone' or 'grove' - I've been relaxed while experiencing the the enjoyment of creating in a very basic or organic way. To that extent, maybe there is a degree of metaphysical phenomena involved. I am not an intellectual type, but, when I made the transfer from rock to jazz many yrs ago, I realized (and that realization was reinforced by the excellent teachers that I was blessed to have had) that an academic approach would certainly lend itself to becoming a good musician. I started this thread by admitting that I think too technically while improvising and received much helpful advise. (a few snide remarks too) I am taken back by some of the self indulging fantasies that some have expressed on this matter in that most musicians that I know personally have a degree of humility developed as a result of having 'paid their dues'.
There is a balance - I can see it on the horizon.

[ksjazzguitar]

I think that there is this romantic notion of the artiste that he is merely a conduit for this divine expression. For some reason we like to think...

Hmmmm, I read this post and thought: Gee, that sounds familiar!

I think that there is this romantic notion of the artiste that he is merely a conduit for this divine expression. For some reason we like to think...

Oh yeah, that's where!

Nikole is just a spammer that has cleverly cut and pasted a paragraph from earlier in the thread so it appears that she is participating. But really it is just spam for the links at the bottom of her post.

Hey, how come you liked it when she said it? Is it because she has boobs?

... in a 'zone' or 'grove' - I've been relaxed while experiencing the the enjoyment of creating in a very basic or organic way. To that extent, maybe there is a degree of metaphysical phenomena involved. ...

Maybe that is where I reach my limits. Being an atheist and a skeptic, I don't believe in the "metaphysical" - to me, everything is in the physical world, even if we don't understand it. (The fact that early man didn't understand lightening, didn't mean that it meant that the gods were angry.) To me, "zone," or "grove," or "flow" are just physical/psychological states that anyone can achieve with the right work. To me, there is no need to get "metaphysical" about it. But others probably disagree.

Peace,
Kevin

[TBrady]

Kevin, I thought 'her' post sounded familiar, sorry I didn't pick up on the 'cut and paste'. (does she really have nice boobs?) To me the word metaphysical means an experiences that I don't fully understand, but does have an explanation that is just not fully understood. I'm not enough of a sucker to attribute it to god(s). To me the 'uncertainty principle' or 'entanglement' seems meta..., but there is an explanation out there! I'm still paying my dues on my instrument. When I asked Billy Bauer, 'how long does it take...', he answered 'it takes a lifetime'! I never forgot his words and it seems to apply to many aspects of life. Reflecting on those words helps keep things real. Be well, Terry B.

[ejwhite09]

Unfortunately it is the only way to understand what people are really saying. With so much hyperbole and poetic license, it can be hard to divine what people are meaning.



Well at least a few are saying that "non-thinking" is the way to go. If you want to use the terms "active" and "passive" thinking then that kind of works for me. I was kind of using the idea of "background" thinking in the sense that you are using passive.



If I understand your terminology correctly, then to me, I would say that the technical details of physically playing are just automatic (picking, finding the note that I want, etc.) The simple technical aspects of the musical playing (what is a ii-V, how do I play it, etc.) are also entirely automatic. The more advanced (and creative) aspects of the musical playing (call and response, building an interesting intensity arc, using interesting rhythms, listening to the other musicians, etc.) that is mostly passive thinking, but I usually chose to focus on a few of them in an active way to do them better. Again, I think that if you are strictly passively thinking about every thing, then I question if you are truly in the moment. Some claim to have this Zen, no-mind state, but again, I think that this is mostly a Romantic notion about what artists do and I can't seem to find it in the writings of real artists when they talk about being creative.

Again, some of this may be tied up in this old fashioned notion of what "thinking" is. Some seem to still equate it with math and logic. Like I've said, if you're thinking about the mathematics of scales, then you aren't thinking about music.



I distinguish between physical technique and musical technique. Of course the physical technique is how to play the scales, arps, sequences. The musical technique (on the simple level) is how to navigate guide tones, resolve dissonance, etc. Classical composers are always talking about the technical aspects of composition. (And for the record, they do think when they compose.)



Yeah, I don't think of the "zone" or "flow" as being "not-thinking" (as some have stated.) The point is that you are intensely focused and you are not distracted. You are intensely in the moment and nothing else matters. The point is that you are thinking as clearly and on topic as possible.

They just had something on NPR about measuring people having epiphanous thoughts and trying to measure the brain activity as it would happen. I wont get into the details, but what they found was right before the person had the epiphanous thought in answering a word puzzle, there was a rise in alpha waves in the brain (associated with deep relaxation) and that they could often predict when the person was going to have the realization by just watching the brain waves, sometimes 8 seconds in advance. That kind of supports this notion of "different" thinking going on. One might equate that alpha-wave state with "zone" or "flow" and that it may actually be a quantifiable mental state. But they are still thinking, they are just more relaxed, receptive, undistracted, and focused. Perhaps for some this feels like "not-thinking."

I've looked for a link, but I can't find it. I'll check again later, gotta get ready for a gig.

Peace,
Kevin

Anytime people are going to discuss such an existential question as the thought process, philosophy is the domain of hyperbole and peotic language.
Yeah it just seems like semantics to me, because the end of the story is if you're not 'thinking' you're dead. So if you're not dead you are thinking. No one would say they are 'thinking about walking.' But you are its just happening in a very subconsious way, because its such a familiar action. Is it scientifically, technically correct to say I don't think about walking...no. But I think the term could suffice in common conversation. When someone says they're not thinking about that in music, I know they don't literally mean they go brain dead when they play, I interpret it to mean that they aren't thinking about what scale to use, etc etc, in an active way they are confident in their skills enough to let their ears guide them in the moment.

[ejwhite09]

I think that there is this romantic notion of the artiste that he is merely a conduit for this divine expression. For some reason we like to think that this is some sort mindless activity, as if that increases the "holiness" of it. Why do we think that "thinking" somehow dirties the process? We see this myth perpetuated in movie after movie. Just look at all the crap that people think about Mozart - you could write a whole book debunking the mythology around that one person, much of with is this same "anti-intellectual" vibe. I don't know why we seem to have this need to de-intellectualize our artists and their process

Because then you couldn't sell every teenager and middle age crisis victim thousands of dollars in musical equipment.

[TBrady]

Anytime people are going to discuss such an existential question as the thought process, philosophy is the domain of hyperbole and peotic language.
Yeah it just seems like semantics to me, because the end of the story is if you're not 'thinking' you're dead. So if you're not dead you are thinking. No one would say they are 'thinking about walking.' But you are its just happening in a very subconsious way, because its such a familiar action. Is it scientifically, technically correct to say I don't think about walking...no. But I think the term could suffice in common conversation. When someone says they're not thinking about that in music, I know they don't literally mean they go brain dead when they play, I interpret it to mean that they aren't thinking about what scale to use, etc etc, in an active way they are confident in their skills enough to let their ears guide them in the moment.

Semantics is a funny thing, it can be manipulated in many ways just as statistics can be. After all is said and done my question was a simple one. Most responses were germane to my question (sometimes abstractly), a few snide, one comment downright patronizing, (I'm wise enough to recognize that ) but, all interesting! Be well, TB.

[ejwhite09]

Semantics is a funny thing, it can be manipulated in many ways just as statistics can be. After all is said and done my question was a simple one. Most responses were germane to my question (sometimes abstractly), a few snide, one comment downright patronizing, (I'm wise enough to recognize that ) but, all interesting! Be well, TB.

Everyone essentially agreed: cement the basics and 'think' about being creative. And then an argument ensued on whether we should use the word 'think' 'passive/active' 'zen' 'zone' 'twaves' etc etc. It doesnt matter what word is used since everyong essentially agreed on the concept being described, thats what I mean by semantics, just arguing over term used to describe a concept everyone agrees upon. Interestingly a great movie called When the Band Played On, demonstrates this phenom.