-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Many people simply won't eat certain dishes now matter how well executed they are.
I daresay chefs, like musicians are up for trying anything, but I don't know many chefs so that might be rubbish haha....
Also, sometimes you are in the mood for something fancy and sometimes you want a burger.
Happy Christmas!
-
12-26-2016 09:03 AM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
But I'm also interested in the non mechanical differences. Let's say we believe Hal Galper when he says that the instrument is an illusion. If true musicianship exists in the imagination- the quality of what you hear and how you can express what you hear- then surely there is a way to quantify how developed the musical mind might be in different instrumentalists. Now, we train our musical mind with our instrument, so it can't be a total illusion. The piano creates superior musicians primarily because it is a superior "music teaching machine". Pianists I know are better at hearing, better at transcription, better at discerning rhythm, better at hearing bass lines, better at composition, even better at singing, or can improvise vocally better than other instrumentalists I know. Generally speaking, and based on my own limited observations, granted...
But I have to ask myself why I think I'm noticing these differences. Is it because the piano is a better "teacher", or is it because better quality "potential musicians" are attracted to the piano in the first place, because they find other instruments too limiting?
-
The simplest explanation is because his music sounds closer to what the music sounds like in my head/heart. Also, as someone who has played "virtuosic level" pieces in different styles and on different instruments, it is fascinating to me that there seems to be NO END to his virtuosity. It is truly as if nothing is harder for him than a c major scale. It's most certainly true the limitations are that of the guitar, not him.
As to why in a bit more detail, let's start with dynamics. Yamashita seems to overcome what is the greatest fault of the guitar. He possesses a full true pppp to F. Most guitarists (myself absolutely included) range from p to mf.
Tone color, he invokes colors I've never heard before. Textures I've never heard. And that is before you even include REVOLUTIONARY techniques he uses to play things I'm not convinced a human can actually play. Things like simultaneous different tremelos with his index and pinky, while playing the bass with his thumb...
Fire... some people have this inside them, others don't. For a simple explanation, there are some people who just "don't get" Yngwie (note I didn't say like). No amount of trying to convince them would help, they lack the fire inside them that players like yngwie, Yamashita, holdsworth, tap into. I'm convinced they lack the ability to respond to that particular emotional stimuli.... Back to Yamashita, his playing is unmatched in its ferocity. Regardless of what the technical demands are, he can imagine it into reality. If he wants to play it at 170 bpm, he does it. 200, sure. 250 no matter. The only limitation is his imagination.
technique... he is unmatched
musicality... he is incredibly creative. As to whether he follows the score "perfectly" I don't particularly care. First, I don't want to hear the same piece played the same way by every player in the world. Second, I think if those composers could have imagined someone actually possessing the technical ability he does, they would probably compose the piece differently.
Instrument knowledge. His interpretive decision making demonstrates a complete understanding of his instruments design and ability.
.......
All that being said, I can understand why some people don't like to listen to him. But to that i offer this rebuttal.
His is not a passive listen, it's a roller coaster ride.
From your post I get the feeling that you appreciate
- his fantastic control over instrument which I never denied... but control over the instrument is the means.
- his creativity - which for me again is a bit abstract... there are very determined things in musical pieces that are easily described... I can't see creativity per se... without application to certain musical pieces.
Actually as I said before to certain degree I can appreciate his Pictures from Exhibition... where probably his skills fall into the right path... this music is too abstract from any musical language (even Russian music)...
Maybe he would have been good in Xenakis or something like that... something that uses absolutely different musical convention... if he had a chance.
In traditional repertoire he sounds to me like he is lost and trying to invent something, to estimate some relations basing on very different parameters than this music has as basis.
Probably it's because of the different culture as Christian said... I have heard many fantastic technicians from Far East who played Rkhmaninov or Bach... and almost always I had very strange alien feeling...
You know it's like a guy who would come to traditional European house and would try to identify the purposes of the rooms and finally would decide that here you should cook in the bathroom and sleep in the kitchen...
Maybe he will succeed and maybe it's creative even.. but it's not what the house-builder meant to be for sure.
-
sometimes you are in the mood for something fancy and sometimes you want a burger.
-
But I get why people get a bit annoyed at the dichotomy of technique vs. musicality. It's a cliche, and also there are plenty of players that have both.
I have pratly funn but for me mostly sad story... I like 40th Symphony played by Furtwangler (he has two records, I think this one is of war period, not sure).
Whenever I put it one to someone everybody laughs and think that I put it to mock Furt because of the slurs violines make at the beginning...
The same thing I had with Konstantin Lifschits playing Musical Offering... poeple think I put it on to laugh at his muddy 'pedal work'...
I get so lost at these moments that I do not even to go on with explaining...
So who speaks about technique...
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
As for Ana Vidovic, I love her playing and I think most of us here would agree that she is quite pleasant to watch!
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
Like I said, no amount of explanation will help you "get it". I explained to you (granted in short) what I liked in general about his interpretations, and your response is to tell me what you think I like??? Perhaps what you value in music bores me to tears, and what I value, you consider "too much". That's fine, art is subjective.
However,
Comments like these conjure a vision of art critics standing in front of a Van Goah saying, "that's not how sunflowers are supposed to look"...
History doesn't remember the critic, they remember the visionary.
-
Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
But if an artist wants my time, attention and money they're going to have to pay for it by listening to my opinion. And conversely if someone's just hearing me through an open window quietly practicing, and they don't like it, they can keep their opinion to themselves.
I looked at some images from the artist you mentioned. Kitsch is the word I'd use. Typical of the Glowing Cottages, Dogs Playing Poker and Cats Playing With a Ball of String school. Or if it's three dimensional, mass produced Capodimonte figurines advertised on TV. It's hard to compare that to the artist (who teaches at Yale) who's big time Manhattan exhibit consists of a pile of dirt with a sheet of plywood leaning against it. Oh well, what ever pulls your tractor.
Several years ago there was a critical essay titled Taste is the Enemy. I haven't read it or been able to find it and don't really know what it's all about but I was intrigued by the title.
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
Ate quite a lot of McDonalds in Japan, and I love Japanese food... Just needed something familiar and simple (to my Western palette)
BTW Japanese McDonalds I think is a cut above UK McDonalds (which doesn't even have the benefit of being fast.)
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
I'm somewhat of a newcomer to forums and online writing protocols but have of course noticed the tendency for people to space things in order to make them more readable. Part of me is resistant to this but I realize there is an intrinsic difference between reading something on a screen or on paper. Maybe this relates to this: I knew a guy in the 80s that published poetry and was a wordsmith in general. He said that he could always tell writing by someone who'd learned to write on a word processor.
-
Originally Posted by mrcee
These are very complex issues.
In a sense it is best if a working musician has no musical taste at all, because playing music is so different to listening to it. Most of the musicians tend to evaluate things on the basis of how well they are done, and go from there.
I have become less opinionated over time (no really) but I would describe myself as massively more opinionated than most of my colleagues! Influenced by my dad - a lay listener with very strong tastes.
For example, although I respect execution and sheer ability, it doesn't interest me that much. This might shape me as a player - I don't think I'm as neat and tidy as I probably should be. But on the other hand, IMO everything now is too neat and tidy by half.
Gyorgy Ligeti said (I paraphrase no doubt) 'music shouldn't have it's tie all straight.'
For example, I cannot be bothered with the Punch Brothers - who pretty much every musician I know seems to love - but they are all amazing and I have to respect that. My feeling is - OK, so you've covered Kid A by Radiohead on Bluegrass instrumentation. Highly impressive. Also, So f**king what?
Until Chris Thile writes another tune as good as Rye Whisky (which is a decent song), I'm not terribly interested.
BTW Jonah have you heard his Bach Mandolin record?Last edited by christianm77; 12-26-2016 at 11:03 AM.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Hey, I stated this thread, and I think a lot of very interesting thoughts have been brought up, but no one has addressed the above, you all skipped over it. Jazz pianists may be better musicians than most other instrumentalists. Do you dare to disagree? Is being a better musician harder than not being a better musician?
-
Personally I like and welcome intelligent criticism. It's a question of 'only your best friend will tell you'. I've no interest at all in people who smile and say 'lovely' whatever you do. I've seen too much of it. It implies they don't actually give a damn about you or your music. Or, of course, they have absolutely no discrimination and don't know what they're talking about.
I'd much rather someone expressed their honest opinion than blahed out some meaninglessly trite comment. Or said 'I don't really know, I'm not up in these things' and meant it honestly.
There's a good bookshop near where I live. I've been noticing for some time now that they've been advertising their books by displaying their own or other authors' write-ups. Obviously they've got to sell books but every single notice says 'The best novel this year'. 'Superlative writing. 'This new author is headed for great things' etc etc, blah blah. It's obviously nonsense, designed solely to get people to buy books.
It means the whole point and purpose of critique has become devalued. It means you can't trust a word they say because they only have their own commercial interests at heart - at the expense of the customer. With other more mundane commodities one might expect a bit of that but in the realm of artistry - writing, music, or whatever else - the Trade Descriptions Act doesn't seem to apply!
As mostly experienced players here I think we can afford to be honest with each other if necessary. What do you say?
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
As I've got older I found I've become more and more simple, not more complex. These days I tend to put in just about all it takes to make it work. Keeps the brain nice and clear. But it's knowing what to put in and leave out. That's the rub.
If you can stand it, there's an old story in a shipyard. They're trying to launch this huge ship and it just won't go. They've tried everything but no joy. Then someone says 'Let's get old Joe Smith from the village. He worked here for years and knows all the tricks'.
So off they go to get Joe Smith. He arrives with a small hammer, gives it a tap and, bob's your uncle, off floats the ship. 'That'll be £100, please' he says.
'A hundred pounds!' they cry, 'for one tap with a hammer?'
'Sure' says Joe. '£1 for hitting it and £99 for knowing where to hit it'.
My dad told me that, years ago :-)Last edited by ragman1; 12-26-2016 at 11:56 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Originally Posted by jazznylon
Somebody thinks this is the world's greatest guitarist. And judging from the Harvard audience's reaction plenty are in agreement. Again, I'm not an expert on this type of music but it doesn't seem that great to me. A guy played this for me and was all impressed then I played him some Paco de Lucia and he capitulated and said "Yeah yeah ok I get it".
Sometimes the emperor is just buck ass naked.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by vintagelove
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Originally Posted by mrcee
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Pianists are sometimes a bit lacking in the 'acknowledging there are other musicians in the group some of whom might have an idea about harmony' because their instruments are so complete on their own. But experienced ensemble players aren't like this, it's usually guys who play on their own a lot.
I can't go back all over all your post, so I just wanted to say, guitar is a bit of a culture on its own, and that much of this culture may not have much to do with music. I feel a lot of discussions on this forum are coming from this place, especially those to with technique, scales and so on. I'm not saying those things aren’t important, but more that they are often discussed from a sort of guitar mind set.
Pianists tend to be more... music oriented. Classical training I think is really good for this.
For me, I remember when Barney Kessel said 'be a musician, not a guitarist.' For me being a musician involves a bit of piano playing, like you say it is a great teaching machine for music even if one's actual chops aren't up to performing. You don't have to be Franz Liszt to get into a bit of keyboard harmony, and it teaches all sorts of things.
Another thing is that pianists tend to start super early compared to guitar players.Last edited by christianm77; 03-12-2018 at 07:42 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
I'm so jaded that I'll believe a lot of crazy stuff. I posted a video of Eric Clapton trying to play jazz. I thought it was genuine until another forum member straightened me out and said that it wasn't.Last edited by mrcee; 12-26-2016 at 12:29 PM.
-
Blimey, that Yama guy's like fifteen rounds with Mike Tyson!
takes an asprin
Ham Radio
Today, 05:39 PM in Everything Else