-
I just see what I see and hear what I hear...I'm curious as to what, exactly, you find objectionable. Is is the lack of any angle between the forearm, and wrist? The reason I ask is that I have a friend who is heavy into classical. I once did some fingerstyle with my left wrist in this "bent" position--when viewed from on front...the left arm is at angle of course, to the ground...descending from the right shoulder socket, and then again an angle, bent at the wrist...so that the entire forearm/wrist is at a say 130 degree angle, when viewed front-on.
He said this is entirely "old school" and that this posture is probably what almost ended Aaron Shearer's career due to carpal tunnel stress injuries...Long story short...Shearer revised his technique, wrote a book on it...and now his approach is supposedly state of the art at Peabody Institute in Baltimore (and other places). My friend studies with a woman in New York who was at Peabody, she is about 35...Armenian, originally, and is supposedly a top 10 in the world guitarist. I can find her name if it is really important, but I don't have it at the moment.
Acc'd to my friend, Segovia's technique has now been surpassed, and in his words, acc'd to his teacher, almost every top flight graduate from Peabody now surpasses Segovia's technique.
I said he looks like imitating classical posture because he puts the stool under his left foot (or support I cannot see)... but the neck is still so low that he bends his hand out too much and lowers his left shoulder all the time...
The guitar is obviously not fixed - he holds it with his hand..
Besides he even plays thumb over the neck sometimes..
His right hand is also very awkward... bent in.. almost lying on the deck... it gets the hand stuck (Pat Metheny plays like this but he is self-taught and does not play classical repertoire and I bet he would not recommend anyone copy it)..
And he plays with the pick some times?
I am not against it in general - up to him...
But all this puts restriction to technical performance of classical repertoire...
he manages to overcome some points because he just has good hands... I mean physically he has good hands to handle it all...
But it is obvious to me that it's not enough in this case.
His playing is very rough, neglegent to details.. more pop style (as well as mucic though)
It does not have anything in common with classical... except the guitar.
-
12-24-2016 06:59 AM
-
I just don't get what 'surpassed' means here... more efficient (for what?), faster?Acc'd to my friend, Segovia's technique has now been surpassed, and in his words, acc'd to his teacher, almost every top flight graduate from Peabody now surpasses Segovia's technique.
-
I didn't quiz him in detail. I'm assuming he means playing cleaner, louder, faster....maybe more expressively.
He is a "classical guitar absolutist", as in....this is THE best technique to play guitar....period, and that everyone who strives to play guitar well, should use classical technique.
When I point to Kenny Burrell, classically trained, but whose jazz playing seems to be a conscious rejection of that approach--he has no answer. When I mention forum members, whose opinions I respect (e.g. Henry Robinett), who have said that various aspects of classical playing (the Segovia scales) don't work well for jazz, he has no answer...or to other players...Wes M. or George B., whose playing uses a lot of slides and "incorrect" fingering notions (acc'd to classical rules), he just says---well they'd be better if they did play classical style. And my answer is, maybe....but they'd probably sound a lot different.
Sometimes technical debates are settled...e.g. the Fosbury Flop in high jump has been analyzed biomechanically and by physicists, and I'm pretty sure they've said it's better...I don't think there are any current world-class highjumpers who use the old technique (sidesaddle).
But often, different technical approaches are not definitively better, and can dictate, or strongly affect how, and what we can play. (Also, the music we "pour into our brains" as we train (and I use that term advisedly, as I think becoming musical is a lot like becoming good, athletically...ultimately...it is central nervous system training and recruiting our physical bodies to do what we want) can affect our musical outlook....e.g. Django...from an early age, he was steeped in gypsy music, and so for him, it was natural and just "flowed like water". In a nub, that's why I think an overly technical approach to music can become the Sorcerer's Apprentice--if we're not careful.
Lots of big issues here, and I don't mean to derail this thread...so back to the original question, what do you find worrisome about that player's technique?
I'm just trying to understand what you said originally.
PS: I responded to your latest post, before reading the one before, which set out your objections very well. Now I understand where you're coming from.Last edited by goldenwave77; 03-12-2018 at 04:40 PM.
-
Clean loud fast. Who cares. Segovia was an artist :-)
But yeah technical skill is at a high level now. It's certainly no bad thing.
-
You're probably right about Segovia. I have a few CD's of his playing, and don't know enough about other players to make informed comparisons.
But conversations with my friend (and looks at various classical gtr. sites) leads me to believe that there is a fair bit of polarity in the classical world, based on what might be termed "theological" debates--e.g. the bent wrist v. not; the use of the nails (Segovia and his followers) vs. fingertips only; the debate about adapting music written for other instruments/setups for classical guitar; strict interpretation v. interpretive freedom; cutaways v. not; the use of sound reinforcement/amplification v. none, etc.. As an outside, casual listener I'm tempted to say....none of this matters---play your music, and that should be the test. Maybe some of this comes from a more or less fixed performance repertoire.
Henry Kissinger, before he became part of the foreign policy establishment, was an up and coming star in the academic world. As a college senior at Harvard, his senior thesis was 300-400 pg., which led the University to adopt a pg. limit on submitted senior theses (I think it's 200 pages.) He was also a really skilled bureaucratic infighter, and he had a telling comment about politics in academe to the effect that "the politics are so vicious....because the stakes are so small."Last edited by goldenwave77; 12-24-2016 at 04:19 PM.
-
Can anyone today play even close to this? No matter on which instrument... I do not know anyone to be honest
this kind of musicians just seem to be gone together with the music they played... they were the last who still had the living tradition inside
-
Yes. As was mentioned previously, Kazuhito Yamashita.
Originally Posted by Jonah
-
musically he sounds to me like an actor with perfect pronucnciation reading the part on the language he does not understand.Yes. As was mentioned previously, Kazuhito Yamashita.
(I found his playing the same Sor - Mozart piece that Segovia plays in the post above)
-
Ha!
-
Wow. It amazes me - butt hurt people. And actually really, really pisses me off to no end. Here's a remarkable guitarist. I'd never heard of him. And somebody has the f/ing arrogance, the temerity on this forum to criticize him?????? Jesus Christ. Unbelievable. Seriously. You f-ing come close. You don't have s**t to say.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I agree completely. I didn't get it. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
I apologize. I just hate those who denigrate obviously artistry and harder working artists, especially from those who clearly aren't in the sane orbit. I think there are factors also in play with people like him who push the buttons of others, not necessarily you, but give the criticism a rest please.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Here is the video of him playing:
What I love most about his playing is not his unparalled technique or musicality but rather, his energy. I haven't seen or heard a classical guitarist display such strong passion or energy in their playing or at least comparatively speaking.. Incredible I say!
-
Welcome to the internet Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
Wow. It amazes me - butt hurt people. And actually really, really pisses me off to no end. Here's a remarkable guitarist. I'd never heard of him. And somebody has the f/ing arrogance, the temerity on this forum to criticize him?????? Jesus Christ. Unbelievable. Seriously. You f-ing come close. You don't have s**t to say.Well...I apologize. I just hate those who denigrate obviously artistry and harder working artists, especially from those who clearly aren't in the sane orbit. I think there are factors also in play with people like him who push the buttons of others, not necessarily you, but give the criticism a rest please.
He performs publicly and I have the right to say my opinion.
This opinion does not mean that he is a bad person, or whatever you might think I meant.
I was not emotional, irritated, jealous, mocking or kidding.
I was a bit sad though as I always feel when I see brilliant skills taht work against musical means as I hear it.
It does not even mean arrogance to him.
My remark did not concern his mental or physical abilities or personal qualities or whoever on this forum.
I see that he is fantastic technician, but that he does not understand music, yes I can hear it. I know even why.
All I did was expression of my feeling from his performance.
Artistry and musicianship is not just being expressive, emotional, control dynamics and sound production process.
This is being a music in sematical sense.
Kazuhito Yamashita maybe hears his own logics in this music, but it is definitely not the logics or Sor or Mozart (how do I know? Because I live, eat and sleep with 'em that's how!)
By the way Musorgsgsky I listened before - I had very weird feeling, it was very impressive, but very strange... but still convincing enough, like Dostoyevky's Idiot directed by Kurosawa...
But Musorgsky is extremely unconventional composer - even for Russian... it gives probably wider fiel of interpretation in that sense (in a way he could be Japanese... weird but I could imagine this), and it is much wider than Mozart or Sor in that sense, they are much more in conventional language...
And there's nothing bad or wrong that this language might escape this guitarist belonging to another culture...
What is strange to me that there are hundrends of thpse who supposedly should have understanding and give positive estimations where I can clearely see it's wrong.
Imagine that someone built your house and then in a week it begins to fall apart... you say: hey.. it's wrong. But everybody tells you: shshsh... you shut up... look how these guys work with a hammer, what a bump, what power... how can you critisize? You cannot even hit the nail... sit quite in this beautiful wallless roofless house... and don't you dare say anything
-
Since (today) there is rarely improvisation in classical music, interpretation/expression of the written note is all that distinguishes artists of equal technical ability. Perhaps Yamashita's interpretation of that Mozart piece isn't to your liking, which is fine. Nevertheless, Segovia wasn't the be-all and end-all of classical guitarists. And although I am not qualified to say that one virtuoso is better than another (nor does such a "ranking" interest me one bit), in response to "Can anyone today play even close to this?", the answer is certainly yes. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Yes, energy...What I love most about his playing is not his unparalled technique or musicality but rather, his energy. I haven't seen or heard a classical guitarist display such strong passion or energy in their playing or at least comparatively speaking.. Incredible I say
But just energy is not enough...
I don't understand - to me it is enough to play these two performances one by one - to see what this music ir...
There can be many interpretations.. the thing is that Segovia does not do anything special - he just speaks very naturally. Very simple things...
and Yamashota's is like trying to invent something or what?
What for all this energy is here?
Ok I wont say anything... same thing all the time.
Sorry guys if hurt anyone
-
this is quite a post..first check this Stanley Jordan piece..Horace silvers song for my father..now in the long "intro" I find John McLauglin flavors on some of the long lines..
In regard to which is more difficult..at the top end..in terms of jazz today..I would ask Chick Corea and Bill Evans Ben Monder and Lee Ritenour ..
but way before the top end gets addressed..lets go to day one..you have two new students both have not played one note on piano or guitar:
You the teacher are going to explain how to form a triad starting on middle C..using only verbal instructions-
on the piano..to form a C major triad..you are going to press down on the notes C E and G..using only the white keys-these are every other white key..so pressing down of the C note..skip a white key - that is the E note-skip another white - key and that is the G note..now press down all three at the same time and that is the C major triad.
on the guitar: OK due to how the guitar fretboard is laid out..we have to begin an octave lower than middle C..so instead of the C note being on the first fret second string it will now be on the third fret fifth string..or the A string..
At this point the guitar student is planning to escape..the amount of questions is overflowing and having no reference point at all to hold on to..even the ability to ask a proper question is a challenge..now should the explanation of forming a C major triad continue..explaining an "Open" string may be the over the edge push needed to end a budding musicians dream
keep in mind..both students have yet to play one note on the instruments..so forming the chord on the piano will just be to press with very little pressure to hear the result..the guitar will require quite a bit more adjusting as the pressure and finger position are going to be very foreign to the student..not to mention the need to use both hands and pick only three strings..and again the method of a pick or finger style comes into play..
so in just a 30 min lesson..the piano student could be taught the C major scale and how to form the triads in the scale..the guitar student may need hours or even several days before the basic C triad is played with accuracy..ahh yes and the finger tip pain..Last edited by wolflen; 12-24-2016 at 05:13 PM.
-
Q: How many guitarists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Twenty. One to change the bulb and nineteen to say, "Not bad, but I could've done better"
Fortunately audiences usually consist of non-musician that have no clue as to what the logic of Mozart is
-
That SJ vid with him playing piano with his left hand and guitar with his right shows /proves how weakly a guitar comes across when played like that and when having to compete with and /compared to a piano.
Like SJ and Lenny Breau and others, once these guitar players add that chord technique, their music most often has no
'B***s.' ...( ' cojones ' ) .........Yes they are to be commended for the guitar work they feel they must do.
At some point though, some of us guitarists have to be honest and just admit that we are frustrated piano players. You wouldn't see Bill Evans or Chick Corea spend that ( practice ) time adding a guitar to his music by tapping notes on a guitar with his right hand, while playing chords with his left. .
Neither pianist, nor any other, has ever had to- -they have their complete orchestra right at their fingertips.
Sorry but especially at a high level - - guitar vs piano, lifetime effort vs. lifetime results, only one instrument wins, and it's not the one with six strings.
MHO, of course.
-
I think they're both pretty damned difficult, and wouldn't denigrate virtuosos on either. I definitely cotton to guitar and that's where my practice time goes; other instruments I play aren't so much for gigs but rather to round out information in my head -- it's why I learnt piano, to get a better grip on polyphony and independent hands, for instance.
Is one instrument better than the other? Meh, depends on the context. Piano's great for getting the orchestral vibe, but not so hot at bending up to a blue note en staccato in a slow blues.
-
Nah man its cool, I think I understand what you're saying. Actually if I had a choice to listen to either Segovia's or Yamashita's interpretation of the piece throughout the whole day I would choose Segovia's version. Its just more listenable you know? Originally Posted by Jonah
If I want to get my socks blown off (which ain't often!) or get inspired I would listen to Yamashita's version. I don't listen to much classical music though so my opinion may not weigh much.. whatever!Last edited by jazznylon; 12-25-2016 at 07:26 AM.
-
Artists, professionals or just hobbiests, need to have well honed critical skills if they're going to be worth much. Self critical skills first and foremost. Not everyone's going to like everything. I personally like free jazz and am a big Cecil Taylor fan but I consider much of what I hear to be garbage even if it's being done by professionals with big careers playing expensive instruments. And I'm not really on board with Miles' 80s stuff or Coltrane's Love Supreme. But that's just me. It doesn't mean that overall I don't love their music. Originally Posted by Jonah
Visual artists who went through the 1970s NYC conceptual trenches (even as Buck Privates that got killed in action) were forced by both academia and the business to be uncompromisingly critical and imo today's jazz musician/student could take a lesson from this. Being an artist is on some level all about being critical. When a good musician/artist is listening to music, even their own while they're playing, they are making constant critical judgments.
I've got a critic friend (an older dude who'd seen Coltrane and Monk among many) who like a lot of guys like that is not hugely into jazz guitar. We were listening once to some Kenny Burrell and he said "Yeah...good old reliable Kenny Burrell." Kind of a back handed compliment but I get his point. Joe Pass prompted him to say "Jeez...great player but let's make some coffee. I'm falling asleep." Ella Fitzgerald brought this comment. "She always sounds like she has no idea what the lyrics mean." Right, but she was about things beyond just "telling a story". Art Tatum? "I love him but a little too much ornamentation for my taste." he said. He felt that Coltrane's tone and soloing could be "hectoring". And my friend was not being mean spirited, he's just got very high standards and will be the first to laud and applaud the above artists.
There's a famous scene in a sixties Dylan documentary where he basically "pushes Donovan's face in it". Donovan at that time was sort of a shameless Dylan clone complete with the corduroy hat and a song with the word "wind" in the title. But Donovan apparently learned from the experience, found his own voice and went on to make some great music.
Music can be a lot like sports where the opposing team will heckle the batter with barbs like "Easy out. Easy out." Or those ridiculous scenes from British Parliament where the opposition gets derisive and aggressive. Herschel Evans used to tease Lester Young and say "Man, you've got an alto tone. You better start playing alto!" Some young cats in the band with Roy Eldridge were giving him a hard time about not being a great reader. He picked his horn up and held it saying "Look. I'm an artist. I express myself with this thing." If a musician can't take this kind of stuff they'll never make it as an Artist.Last edited by mrcee; 12-26-2016 at 12:10 PM.
-
Agree with a lot of the preceding post.
The truth is art is hard, but doing good art, and getting public acclaim (and critical acclaim) is a trifecta that not many win.
Was listening to "Jordu" yesterday by Clifford B. (my favorite trumpeter). Checked out the tune's writer. It was Duke Jordan...went to a few other YT tunes by him, and liked what I heard. Curious, looked him up in "The Rough Guide to Jazz" (1998 ed.). Not even mentioned...zilch... no entry. Wikipedia lists a lot of promising-looking albums...a bunch on Blue Note. Those are a good bet, in my book. Then read that he spent a fair bit of time driving a cab in NY. Art life is hard.
On the other hand, I don't like much Woody Allen, BUT he has one movie scene that captures the absurdity of the lay expert (and critic): He has some know-it-all in a movie line (queue) discoursing on Truffaut...who is standing in front of the know-it-all in line with a quizzical expression.
But we're asked to spend our money, and pay attention to scores of artists...some good, some not so good, some popular, some obscure, and all possible permutations of the foregoing. Can't give everyone equal time/support. On some level, we can't avoid being critics.
Happy Holidays to all.Last edited by goldenwave77; 12-25-2016 at 10:35 AM.
-
I hear you on the lay critic. I was talking to a guy the other day who was a big Art Tatum fanatic but had never heard of Bud Powell or Earl Hines. He went on to go on and on about Ray Noble but didn't know that he wrote Cherokee. Or had even heard of the tune.
Reply With Quote
Giving the Loar some love
Today, 05:05 PM in The Builder's Bench