Your daily dose of "go practice."

[Christian Miller]

Oi, Chris stop it, it's suboptimal!!!!

Said none of the violinists who packed out his Wigmore Hall recital.

[ruger9]

Oi, Chris stop it, it's suboptimal!!!!

Said none of the violinists who packed out his Wigmore Hall recital.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Aaaand.... he's not even READING. From memory.

[Jonah]

It does seem to be the case, especially in the last year or so, that this forum has a growing number of grumps. No matter what is posted, no matter the talent level, or the gear quality, or whatever, there's always several people coming in to poop on the parade. What drives such people? Does always having something negative to say make them feel superior, or something?

"They are playing it wrong"
"That kind of music shouldn't be played on that kind of instrument"
"Fender shouldn't make vintage-circuit amps without tubes"
and on...and on...and on....

The guy in the OP is very talented, and he's making good music. If you don't LIKE it or APPRECIATE it, fine. But there's nothing "wrong" about it. You must be one of the people who criticized EVH for tapping, and then posted the video of the guy who was doing it in 1965

I partly agree with you....


but you see there is also a huge problem for me... I want to have the right to say that some things are wring if I know why.

Mostly it happens in classical (not guitar) world where Iparticipate a lot too... I ofte fell lost, disppaointed, confused and at the and of it all simply alone... yes, just alone ... when people praise some performance of Bach suite and if I say (very politely): excuse me, I think this performance is not good, it is wrong... I am torn apart immidiately (from 'how dare you' to ' play first then say')

My problem is I do not take any guesses and it is far beyond any pretensions... I just really know what music is about...

Will you tolerate an actor who come up on a stage and begin to ignore the meaning of the pice you know well... just speaking sentences as if they have no meaning... mixing commas and dots and just general meaning (forget punctuation). Will you say 'there is nothing wrong, the guy is genius'?
Genius at what? At high speed speech? At particularly clear atticulation? At fantasically open vowels and tremendously clean consnants?


I am not talking about the guy in the OP, I think he is OK actually as I wrote before... he is great in technique and he is on spot musically.
But there are many other cases where I would have been torn apart for saying: 'No, it is wrong.'

I think I must say it.. I should not pass buy... why should why? I want to keep it up, and not being dropped down.

We live in the times when everything becomes equal to anything... I cannot accept it.

To me art is the most democratic thing for perception (that is a person with no education at all can sometimes understand it better than snobbish professors)
but art has strong hierarchy for creator (that is ... if you cannot be good be ready to be thrown down.. no sorry even... because there are Michaelangelos and Mozarts and it is not creative therapy but things that demand spiritual resposibility)

[Donplaysguitar]

The guy in the OP is very talented, and he's making good music. If you don't LIKE it or APPRECIATE it, fine. But there's nothing "wrong" about it.

That's one opinion.

The thing is, it isn't HIS piece. It was composed on and for the classical guitar by Francisco Tarrega over a century ago, whether one likes or appreciates that or not. It is to be played a certain way, and as the composer intended.

So, the guy in the OP was having fun, challenging himself, being fresh with old material? etc. He probably counted on many uneducated contemporary fans being ignorant of history. This effect occurs in all of the major arts today. The standards are not contemporary and are not watered down. We are not required to go along with it. We are not required to "round up" for him.

So, it's a free country. If one likes electric Christmas carols or electric Bach that's OK, as long as they understand they are appreciating a substitute - NOT the real thing.

If one wants to create something original, that's much better. This is like a cover band playing a classic tune - comparisons to the original are INEVITABLE. Can't take the heat? Make your OWN history. Write and play something original.

[Christian Miller]

That's one opinion.

The thing is, it isn't HIS piece. It was composed on and for the classical guitar by Francisco Tarrega over a century ago, whether one likes or appreciates that or not. It is to be played a certain way, and as the composer intended.

By this logic no one should ever play Bach at the piano. Or, at least, a Bach piano recital will always be inferior to one on Harpischord or Organ.

Or for that matter Bach played on classical guitar is inferior for the Lute, Violin or Cello that the music was written for (and BTW, make sure that Cello is in fact a Cello di Spalla.)

And there are some people who think this way. I don't.

You could argue Bach's music is much better and more adaptable than Tarrega's I guess. OTOH, I think it sounds very good on an L5 with a pick.

[kris]

My wife studied harpsichord at the Academy of Music...
Bach-Only those who have tried know how terribly difficult it is.

[Marinero]

LOL! Are you deaf and blind? Stupid, or shameless?

Sent from my Redmi Note 9 Pro using Tapatalk

No, Vlad,
You, and others, who misunderstood my remarks can take that honor since I was referring to info about the guitarist . . . not the guitar. How do you spell D . .U . .H. .??????
Play live . . . Marinero

[Marinero]

My wife studied harpsichord at the Academy of Music...
Bach-Only those who have tried know how terribly difficult it is.

Yes, Kris . . . well said! And, I might add that is precisely why most faux CG's play his music so poorly and incorrectly as I referred to in a previous discussion. You don't learn Bach from a Mel Bay "How To" book. You MUST study with a legitimate teacher.
Play live . . . Marinero

[Marinero]

By this logic no one should ever play Bach at the piano. Or, at least, a Bach piano recital will always be inferior to one on Harpischord or Organ.

Or for that matter Bach played on classical guitar is inferior for the Lute, Violin or Cello that the music was written for (and BTW, make sure that Cello is in fact a Cello di Spalla.)

And there are some people who think this way. I don't.

You could argue Bach's music is much better and more adaptable than Tarrega's I guess. OTOH, I think it sounds very good on an L5 with a pick.

Hi, C,
I hereby grant C. Miller the "Red Herring" award of the day duly noted on 28 September 2021.
Play live . . . Marinero

P.S. And, by the way, C, I love Herring with a sharp Pilsner . . . but, never Red.

[citizenk74]

EVH invented palm muting as well, or so I read on another forum.

And sliced bread, which is handy. Wottaguy, wottaguy!

[Donplaysguitar]

By this logic no one should ever play Bach at the piano. Or, at least, a Bach piano recital will always be inferior to one on Harpischord or Organ.

Or for that matter Bach played on classical guitar is inferior for the Lute, Violin or Cello that the music was written for (and BTW, make sure that Cello is in fact a Cello di Spalla.)

And there are some people who think this way. I don't.

You could argue Bach's music is much better and more adaptable than Tarrega's I guess. OTOH, I think it sounds very good on an L5 with a pick.

I would counter with - false - because the harpischord was succeeded by the piano as the primary keyboard instrument. The piano is a superior instrument, not inferior. That's evolution and innovation.

By way of contrast, guitars of every kind continue to evolve, including the Torres based version of the classical guitar. (Slanted fretboards for upper fret access, double-tops for volume, shorter scale (the classical Johnny Smith), intonated nut etc., etc.)

Finally, guitar transcriptions of keyboard and cello works are just that - transcriptions, and claim to be nothing else. And make no mistake - some work better than others. Some are done for artistic reasons, and some are done for a guitarist's training. For my ears, the transcriptions of keyboard works are the most lacking - for obvious reasons.

There was nothing wrong with the SOUND of the piece in the OP.

[Jonah]

Wherent you the guy that couldn't be arsed to read books by your favorite author, if they where not translated by your favorite translator .. Didn't you marvel at the beauty of the expansion and extra word plays your favorite translator added to the original work, despite these liberties where more made to appeal to Russian sensitivity than to stay true to the original work?

I did not get what you meant.. first it was not quite what I said in concern of originals and translations... I remember my posts of course but this is not quite what I meant there.
second I did not get get how it is relative to the topic.

We probably think about very different categories using the same vocabulary...

I never said here anything of liberties, limitations or truth to originality...

I spoke about very basic thing.
Ley me deacon like this.
The Deposition of Christ by Botticelli...
One guy knows the plot, knows the context, names, characters, much involved in all that. And also he feels the artistic language in relation to al this, he understands how it all works together and how it interacts.
Another guy does know know anything of the context sees the men and women, some drama but he is sensitive to the artistic language (composition, drawing, perspective, colours) and though he does not get the background he can grasp a lot through his artistic sensitivity.
3rd guy knows the story but absolutely insensitive to the artistic language mostly he sees it as an illustration of the plot or idea. He does need art.
4th does not see anything except some lines and some colours ... he can not see figures of people, he does not recognize deceptive perspective, he even sees only basic contours and basic colours, he thinks it's an abstract painting and offers his fundamental interpretation, he has big audience, people admire his ideas.

You feel yourself a lonely lunatic with your Christ, Bibles and illusive perspectives and their relationships....

No-one denies freedom of perception and interpretation but it should have some basic fundamentals of our supposedly common culture. And common sense spreads a bit beyond daily communication routine for me.

Maybe this works better?

[Vladan]

No, Vlad,
You, and others, who misunderstood my remarks can take that honor since I was referring to info about the guitarist . . . not the guitar. How do you spell D . .U . .H. .??????
Play live . . . Marinero

You misunderstood at least 2 things

1. OP and this thread were not about general opus by this guitarist. It was about technique and skill presented in embedded video clip.

2. My comment was not on your response to OP. It was on your response to someone who told you that it was not electric guitar in that video clip .

So piss off, D..U..M..B (that's how I spell Marinero).

Sent from my Redmi Note 9 Pro using Tapatalk

[Donplaysguitar]

It's not about popularity, Don. Whether the "majority" here cares about it or not is not the question at all. And classical repertoire with a pick or hybrid style is only sub-optimal if the player is sub-optimal. Above all, Recuerdos is not at all laborious unless you're one of those sub-optimal players. In fact, it's rather easy to play once you've done the work, and it is a huge favorite among all types of audiences, not just classical guitar. So, you're only on the money in your own head, after all, opinions aren't facts, and all you have are opinions. And your ability to pretend to know that "we both know that" is indicative of someone who would probably be a poor accompanist.

We disagree about technique and its related results/capabilities. All players are human and work with the same anatomy.

I think that Recuerdos is laborious/tedious as a LISTENER. I’ve never played it and won’t pursue it.

Yes I have lots of opinions just like everyone else here including you. As far as insulting me goes all I can say is that I’ve seen your YouTube videos and will say that one of them was very good. The others… man, if you fancy yourself to be an artist or pro… my advice would be to only upload the good stuff. Don’t let your guard down, get lazy, or lower your standards. Not the way you brag.

[ruger9]

Those that can't do... criticize.

And those that can do, and still criticize (like Pat Metheny), still have some growing to do.

[grahambop]

What this thread looks like to normal people:

[mr. beaumont]

Glad I could start a thread that inspired everybody to practice rather than argue


Re: picking-- I'm very enamored with the ease and flow of a lot of bluegrass pickers. I love the sound and the lack of tension...

[Christian Miller]

Glad I could start a thread that inspired everybody to practice rather than argue


Re: picking-- I'm very enamored with the ease and flow of a lot of bluegrass pickers. I love the sound and the lack of tension...

Well I’m practicing it!

[Christian Miller]

I would counter with - false - because the harpischord was succeeded by the piano as the primary keyboard instrument. The piano is a superior instrument, not inferior. That's evolution and innovation.

This is not a very good argument. It doesn’t matter if you think the piano is better (Bach didn’t) - and there are presumably many professional harpsichordists who would take exception with that notion - the music is still effectively a transcription from the original instruments it was played on.

The fact that the keyboard is the same for both instruments is neither here nor there because the fretboard of an L5 and a Torres guitar is also the same. Otoh it’s a good analogy for my argument because the mechanism of the piano is fundamentally different to the harpsichord, which is kind of like the difference between using fingers and a pick (actually much less of a difference tonally.)

Could not the L5 be considered an evolution of the classical guitar? Superior perhaps in terms of projection?

If you can’t make a hard and fast logical distinction between transcription and something as core to the concert repertoire as the Goldberg Variations played on a piano (is Glenn Gould’s Goldberg Variations inherently inferior to a version on harpsichord?), the argument that transcriptions must necessarily be inferior falls apart. There’s many more shades of grey to it.

Even more so when you consider the guitar repertoire thrives on transcription much more than piano. Segovias repertoire was somewhat built on it.

but even within the actual guitar repertoire there’s issues here - Gaspar Sanz played on a modern guitar is not an improvement over the same piece on a baroque guitar, merely different (to be honest I generally prefer baroque guitar music on a baroque guitar with the rhythmic baroque guitar right hand techniques that bring these simple, dance based pieces to life, but that’s an opinion.)

Being a fundamentalist for ‘what the composer intended’ must lead you logically to historically informed performance (but then you run into all sorts of complicated issues that have kept academics going for decades.)

Im not saying I think you are somehow wrong for not liking the piece, or the way it’s played, or sounds on an archtop guitar. But I do get annoyed by badly put together arguments. Personal foible.

[Christian Miller]

I did not get what you meant.. first it was not quite what I said in concern of originals and translations... I remember my posts of course but this is not quite what I meant there.
second I did not get get how it is relative to the topic.

We probably think about very different categories using the same vocabulary...

I never said here anything of liberties, limitations or truth to originality...

I spoke about very basic thing.
Ley me deacon like this.
The Deposition of Christ by Botticelli...
One guy knows the plot, knows the context, names, characters, much involved in all that. And also he feels the artistic language in relation to al this, he understands how it all works together and how it interacts.
Another guy does know know anything of the context sees the men and women, some drama but he is sensitive to the artistic language (composition, drawing, perspective, colours) and though he does not get the background he can grasp a lot through his artistic sensitivity.
3rd guy knows the story but absolutely insensitive to the artistic language mostly he sees it as an illustration of the plot or idea. He does need art.
4th does not see anything except some lines and some colours ... he can not see figures of people, he does not recognize deceptive perspective, he even sees only basic contours and basic colours, he thinks it's an abstract painting and offers his fundamental interpretation, he has big audience, people admire his ideas.

You feel yourself a lonely lunatic with your Christ, Bibles and illusive perspectives and their relationships....

No-one denies freedom of perception and interpretation but it should have some basic fundamentals of our supposedly common culture. And common sense spreads a bit beyond daily communication routine for me.

Maybe this works better?

There are naive responses and sophisticated responses?

A sophisticated modern response to a historical artwork is likely to be different to the equally sophisticated informed response of the historical scholar. And so on.

[BWV]

Bach of course works better arranged on different instruments than composers from later periods, no one tries the Waldstein Sonata on mandolins

moving on, some killer virtuosity here - would say the two EC pieces are the perhaps the most difficult pieces in the rep - has to be rhythmically near perfect, few breathing spaces and technically monsterous

[Christian Miller]

Bach of course works better arranged on different instruments than composers from later periods, no one tries the Waldstein Sonata on mandolins

moving on, some killer virtuosity here - would say the two EC pieces are the perhaps the most difficult pieces in the rep - has to be rhythmically near perfect, few breathing spaces and technically monsterous

That’s some spicy djent.

I have to say I prefer it on the classical, but I just don’t like the electric tone that he’s chosen very much. Something a little more warm might offset the musical language a bit better to my ears.

That reminds me

[ruger9]

OK, so, I gotta....

[mr. beaumont]

Well I’m practicing it!

Me too! Trying, at least.

In the world of damn amazing picking, I think a lot of bluegrassers swing harder than the "gypsy jazz" kids.

[ruger9]

Me too! Trying, at least.

In the world of damn amazing picking, I think a lot of bluegrassers swing harder than the "gypsy jazz" kids.

Ooooh....man... IDK.... "swing" harder? Both styles have amazing pickers, of course....