The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 40 of 40
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    "What do you call a person who loves aesthetic?An aesthete is someone who loves and appreciates works of art and beautiful things." quora.com

    So, yesterday I'm thinking about my conversation with Christian concerning the above topic and the term "aesthete" resurfaces. I think its interpretation is multi-faceted: both descriptive and, in some cases, pejorative. An aesthete is one who loves beauty for beauty's sake or , in its modern, critical sense-- a cultural snob.
    I have always used the word in its original context since the latter interpretation is a very inaccurate twist on what, for me, is a clearly defined term--both historically and culturally.
    Here on JGF, I would assume, we have thousands of professionals, devotees, and students of the Jazz guitar who spend untold hours daily pursuing, for the majority, an illusive, dream:competence/artistry. For most, they will never achieve their goal. Yet, they are heavily invested in quality instruments, amplifiers, books/cds dealing with pedagogy, while for most, they have never played for money or "professionally." However, they continue to pursue this desire/dream because they love beauty/music, they love the visceral process, as they strive for, in a least case scenario--competence and for some-- perfection. Using the above term in its true context, aren't we all aesthetes? Good playing . . . Marinero



  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    What's the difference between loving the Music and loving the performance.

    Personally actual teaching is very different from how things should be taught and learning theories.
    When you try and cover Philosophy, Pedagogy and learning Theory as a teacher... your doomed.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Yes, R,

    With one caveat: this is true in the early stages. However, once technical competence has been mastered, the only way forward is "Philosophy, Pedagogy and learning Theory"(Reg). This is when a truly good teacher is critical. Otherwise, we have hordes of technicians devoid of a unique voice and just playing the black dots--a criticism I often make about many contemporary Classical guitarists. Good playing . . . Marinero

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Yes I agree ... it's just most stay in those early stages. It's a little grey as to what mastery is... anyway I left the door open and hoped someone would comment. Thanks. Where I was heading was how we need to work together, it's really difficult to master every aspect of music... anything. And personally when it's too easy, I believe things are missed. Especially with Jazz... The days of playing 6 nights a week gigs... have long been gone. I know there are probable still a few.... but for most.

    So that no voice technicians thing.... I don't know, some just don't have it. I do know that without the technical skill, almost all don't. It's a good discussion... and I'm no expert.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu


  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Always interesting but sounds like a little bit of fieldwork among the natives. A lot of the members don't 'speak sociology' and even more don't write it so it will be interesting to see your interpretations. (The ones who do, aren't half as interesting to a researcher). On that point, emic or etic?

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    I suppose the cheesiest but clearest pop culture dramatisation of this debate is ‘Dead Poet’s Society.’

    The old poetry teacher embodies the Enlightenment idea of Aesthetics, Robin Williams Praxis.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I suppose the cheesiest but clearest pop culture dramatisation of this debate is ‘Dead Poet’s Society.’

    The old poetry teacher embodies the Enlightenment idea of Aesthetics, Robin Williams Praxis.

    Although, C,
    Praxis IS the application of aesthetic theory. My aesthetic idea of musical performance is for the musician/artist to become "one" with the performance/music where the musician's tools are merely the vehicle for his/her aesthetic taste/ideas. Without aesthetics, the musician is merely a wind-up music box.The two concepts, for me, are inseparable. Good playing . . . Marinero
    Last edited by Marinero; 05-16-2020 at 05:03 PM. Reason: spelling

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Although, C,
    Praxis IS the application of aesthetic theory. My aesthetic idea of musical performance is for the musician/artist to become "one" with the performance/music where the musician's tools are merely the vehicle for his/her aesthetic taste/ideas. Without aesthetics, the musician is merely a wind-up music box.The two concepts, for me, are inseparable. Good playing . . . Marinero
    Yeah I think the key distinction that Regelski (and yes I find the distinction problematic) is making is the framing of Aesthetics as a study (for instance in conventional musicology, the analysis of Great Works) as opposed to a more hands on approach (such as composing and improvising music and seeking to understand it by doing it, taking lessons from the masters as you go*). So I think Regelski would probably regard my idea of musical immersion to develop aesthetic sense as a form of praxis.

    Most students of classical music, we should remember, don't have any real experience trying to compose, let alone, improvise music. So in this world, theory is directed towards the analysis of Great Works to see why they are Great (because liking them isn't enough apparently.) This is an outgrowth of JP Rameau's project in the mid 18th century which was influential in the raising of music as an intellectual and not purely practical pursuit. That's why he have both conservatoires and university music degree.

    One criticism of Regelski is that he is effectively erecting straw men in his argument. I don't think that's quite true - I think the issues are systemic. While I do suspect there are dogmatic individuals buried away in music departments somewhere who believe it is possible to substantiate aesthetic value logically as Kant characterised in his quote above, but I haven't really met anyone like that who actually plays and/or teaches music for a living. But music education does tend towards these sorts of entrenched behaviours almost by accident.

    This is endemic in jazz education. Take Jason on the other forum - being told that m7b9 'sounds bad' - that's capital A Aesthetics of the German type right there, and it's in jazz with the language of 'avoid notes' and 'good sounding note choices' so on. Regelski would also perhaps find room to critique things like chord scale approaches to improvisation, which may not have been adequately addressed from the perspective of how effective they are at helping students improvise.

    * if Robert Gjerdingen is to be believed this is actually how the classical greats actually learned.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Sometimes, I think it's the buildings themselves... This is where I go for lectures:

    Praxis vs Aesthetics-old-royal-naval-college-old-royal-naval-college-0fce3059f1428e44f083532fcb7739f7-jpg

    The buildings were designed by Christopher Wren and Nicholas Hawksmoor. Nelson lay in state here before his state funeral. Pretty imposing... A lot of music colleges seem to have grandiose architecture.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Greenwich? Lucky you. Do you travel by boat?

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    "* if Robert Gjerdingen is to be believed this is actually how the classical greats actually learned." Christian

    Hi, C,
    This may very well be the pedagogy, however, when one listens to Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, Chopin, and even Bach(who some might call a musical mathematician), these precepts are continually violated for personal tastes/aesthetics outside of traditional music theory. Take, for example, Wagner, who was largely self-taught and a revolutionary force for music ,in his time, who upturned the concept of traditional opera with his brilliant and unconventional use of harmonic structure, thematic approach, instrumentation, and cinematic performances. However, the above quote becomes closer to the truth, in my opinion, when studying Baroque and Early Classical Music. However, once we approach the Middle to Late Classical Period, we encounter composers like Beethoven, Bach, Mendelssohn, and Paganini who don't always follow strict/academic musical convention . . . ergo, their unique music. Good playing . . . Marinero
    Last edited by Marinero; 05-18-2020 at 10:20 AM.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    I mean ‘classical’ more in the sense of the classical era. Baroque too, the two lead smoothly into each other. 19th century music is beyond the scope of Gjerdingen’s book really, though he does talk about Bel Canto and the Russians.

    but they all composed in a praxis based way of course. The aesthetic theory of ‘why Tristan und Isolde is good’ lags behind somewhat... can anyone agree on what the Tristan chord is exactly in terms of functional harmony to this day?

    Most of those composers were very prolific. Wagner wrote less actual pieces but his operas go on for whole weekends at a time, so... as for the 18th century pros, Gjerdingen points out that we’d be hard pressed to copy music as fast they composed it. That’s not just the Mozarts - that’s all the working composers of the era.

    If anything 18th century music was more ‘aesthetic’ in the sense that much of it was designed to please an aristocratic taste in a rather formulaic way. But they were trained in a hands on manner. Music was a trade back then, like landscape gardening.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    "...and the Princess and Prince discuss what is real and what is not..." Dylan

    nice thread..I picture it taking place in a dim lit upscale bar..with real red leather booths..aged single malt scotch and where your still allowed to smoke pipes/cigars..

    during the renaissance of the 60's...millions were sure music was the propulsion of the revolution that was just a demonistration away..

    anyone who could learn 3 chords on any instrument and could play several songs of the day were considered ascendent royality of the day..the true kings entourage
    were on the radio and in record stores..and playing live in clubs and concerts and some even on late night TV..

    it was a simple world back then..the good guys wore white hats..

    So I had a simple plan and explained it to Tom Miller..a spiritual friend and partner in crime..as we connected musically on guitar..

    We went to see Larry Coryell at a club called Slugs..on the lower east side of NY near the Village..the club was named correctly..
    the area at that time was .. in plain launguage..dame scarey..(now of course its very nice..with way overpriced rents and lots of cafes)

    So we sat in the first row..and Coryell was sitting on stage by himself..looking at a point beyond the chairs facing him..he held a Gibson 400
    the other members of his group joined him..and for an hour or so we witnessed a new music form being born..
    it wasent stagnant jazz or free form choas..but explosive fury with percision and purpose..and Coryell was amazing all the guitar players who
    may have went home that night and burned their guitars..he punched Clapton lickes in the midst of a blurring scale run that gave way to colliding chord structures
    that have not been heard before on guitar..at least not at that volumn

    See Tom..I said..its like Rock and Jazz in an high speed car crash..!..little did I know..

    several years later..I went to the Whiskey a Go GO in los angeles..to see..the mahavishnu orchestra..
    now the club was not big..perhaps 300 seating at most..I cant describe how this music effected me..what I knew was .. I didnt know..

    so on overview to the above...how/what/where/when can someone absorbe and learn how to create/play/perform a new style of music with the confidence and authority of a Coryell /MO..

    so where indeed does one begin...books..school...teachers..so much to learn..whats important/necessary..how long will it all take to learn stuff like that

    and the journey began and continued...much like the Karate Kid .. I was waxing cars and painting fences and had no idea what they had to do with playing like Coryell/McLaughlin

    OK so I learned all the formal theory/harmony stuff and played the Book..and every now and then..wait.. I would play a line that not only sounded like but felt like the CarCrash...ohhh boy..

    today...so does my music promote any social change..do I want it too..and do I care if it does or not...
    well..not really..Im not in charge of how someone will react to my playing..but should it in some way guide them to study music or play an instrument ..thats cool..

    I find it a bit strange...Bach and Co..todays players..even the DeathCore Metal guys have heard Bach and who may even know a few licks of his
    but some of the same players may not know Coryell or Pat Metheny .. is this their music education..the media is sliced very thin for Classical as it is for Jazz
    so some way Bach & Co prevailed over time and the comtempory players are overlooked..considered not important..yet their music has social impact..does it not..as much as
    their Classical counterparts?? ..

    Now some feel the desire to develop a more spiritual outlook..they study yoga..zen and such..they read about great gurus and masters..they want to know more
    and finally they find someone they can relate to..someone that understands their yearning..someone that can show them a way to live a happier life...
    and the ask this guru...to teach them the way..they say they will study and do whatever it takes..and the guru says OK...

    now they envision being part of a spiritual community..living in an ashram..meditating and chanting..so they go before the master for their first "lesson"

    the master says..."sit...now breath"
    Last edited by wolflen; 05-19-2020 at 03:21 PM.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Well I'll tell you this - we know a lot more about classical music than they know about us... It's a total bubble.

    And a lot of my lectures revolve around 'ooh classical music education is so bad and unimaginative' and I feel like screaming at them. They're so profoundly self involved. But they are LEARNING. And that's good.

    As a guitar teacher I have to teach EVERYTHING. I love it.

    So, I guess I'm of a generation that was starting to forget these players a bit. As far as Coryell? Never listened to him really. I heard a couple of things and thought he sounded great. That's it. I played with a drummer who was crazy about him, but she loved all of those 70s West Coast people; Gadd is her idol.

    But that thing wasn't my area of interest, I guess. So it's possible to be quite ignorant of it. If I was more into fusion as a player, I'm sure Coryell would have come up... I didn't listen to Jeff Beck until about 10 years ago. I think I just liked what I liked... If the music sounded good to me I liked it. A lot of jazz rock sounded kind of corny to me; I'd rather have listened to Jimi.

    Metheny, obvious touch stone for modern jazz... I know people seem to think there's no connection, but the modern jazz guitar movement would not exist without him. He changed everything, the evolution of Jim Hall into a more legato style of jazz guitar. So I teach him even though I don't regard him as a massive direct influence.

    I think now kids get started with Kurt. It's fine. But you have to let them follow the chains of influence back.