Yodeling

abstract said:
From my perspective, I haven't witnessed you doing any "music" yet! Perhaps you don't have the talent? Just the desire and you do what is easy: make nerve rattling, driving sounds that you call music? (Admittedly, a lot of other people call it "music" too, but consider the society that has made it a norm. I rest my case.)

At first, I considered this a sort of slap on the face...that was this morning. Now I'm going to consider it along the lines
of a challenge/invite. Would you all prefer some clean guitar? arpeggios, perhaps? Diatonic thirds? Would you all like something soft and soothing and comfortable to listen to? I would too, i believe i can finish in a day or so. :D

But wait, why stop there? Abstract has not typically done the softer stuff, maybe a whole album of it
would be cool. It's a different sort of avenue to explore, this might be kind of exciting! :)
I've thought a lot about the meaning or essence of music and making music. My working theory for now is that listening to, playing and singing music is, at best, direct communication between the core selves (artist-listener). That is what is beautiful whit music, it's a direct channel to our souls, maybe. Somewhere I read that one characteristic of a "soulless" human is that they can't enjoy or "get" the music. Abstract, I'm not talking about you here, your writing just launched these thoughts here ;)

Two years ago I wrote my thesis named "Communicating in singing in a performance situation" (unfortunately it's in Swedish) and interviewed some singers and their viewpoints as being an artist and listening to others. The main result I got, which maybe wasn't that groundbraking but interesting confirmation still, was that the communication worked best when the different emotions that the artist had during a piece of music where genuine. Artificial and copied mannerist "artistic interpretations" where by all interviewed perceived as not completely satisfying (that is not to say that those interviewed could always achieve genuine interpretations, but that was their ideal anyway). In many cases those interviewed couldn't' explain what exactly was "wrong" with a technically good but "ingenue" performance, many used the expression: "The chemistry between artist and listeners was missing".

And how to achieve that genuine interpretation? One of the "results" i reached in my research was that in the case of performing something already composed the most important things are:

- Good knowledge of the piece, style, composers intentions and the "world behind it" (lot of work!)
- Good technical mastery so that you can accomplish things in the way you want - in a natural way (even more work!)
- Good psychological health and knowledge of one self. Just trying to please others, trying to offer them some interpretation you think they want to hear will lead you astray and the public will feel this (although maybe not consciously knowing why).

Your MOTIVATIONS and REASONS of WHY you are singing/playing in a certain way (or at all) are important to acknowledge. The first thing I try to learn my singing pupils, especially those who are a little more experienced, is that mastery of the instrument starts with acknowledging your weaknesses (I can say this to myself concerning "esoteric" matters!), one must learn to see and shine a light on those non productive ways of producing sound. This can be very hard, since singing is a very personal matter and pointing out problems is often taken as an attack on ones whole personality. Real growth of the talent can start only when the illusions of one self and ones singing can be removed.

One of the books I used in my thesis and that I can recommend was called "Musical Communication" by Dorothy Miell and Raymond MacDonald. It has some nice graphs and models in it about how different elements effect the communication in music, but I'm not that sure anymore how useful they are.
_http://www.amazon.com/Musical-Communication-Dorothy-Miell/dp/0198529368

Whoops, seems I got carried away with my favourite subject :D What I'm trying to say abstract, that the idea of producing some music that will please the others, this being your main motivator to "change" your playing, could be worth reconsidering. I believe that most of us musicians start to play and sing because there's something inside us that wants to come out or that we want to communicate. If we are sincere and produce genuinely that which is inside us, those attracted to those particularly emotions/ideas, will feel satisfaction. But it could be worth considering which part of you or which "I" this "heavy metal" guitar music is representing, and is this the character in you that you want to enhance and communicate to others? And what types of people would this be attracting?
 
Aragorn said:
I've thought a lot about the meaning or essence of music and making music. My working theory for now is that listening to, playing and singing music is, at best, direct communication between the core selves (artist-listener). That is what is beautiful whit music, it's a direct channel to our souls, maybe.

I totally agree with this, and I think there is a great difference while listening to music or voices of an artist whom is giving the best of himself to others and an artist whom is looking for others attention"energy".

An example of artist wich seems to me entirely self-centered, looking for self-gratification and feeding on others atention is Madonna, there are also all those noisy ones promoting sex, male chauvinism, and material attachment like Fifty Cent, Britney Spears or Black eyed peas in total contrast with for example Lucie Silvas, Alanis morissette, The Cors, Hans zimmer, Loreena Mckennitt, Annie Lennox or Jeff Buckley wich seems to be giving voice and expression to their souls making a connection with others.

Certainly the above are just my own impressions but I think if we look carefully there is an STS pattern in some of the most famous and promoted by the music industry.
As in everything else, we choose if we can see the differences, OSIT-
 
abstract said:
I want to share another thing, I was playing guitar just about 10-20 minutes ago, playing softer, slower stuff. Whenever i play that softer stuff for long enough, my entire body relaxes in an identical way to how I feel in the middle of an EE session. Calm and relaxed, the cares of the world drift away.


this is great to hear! Good luck in your continued practice, I am very interested in seeing the results as well. :)
 
Laura said:
We have a couple of serious and very talented musicians and artists here in our house. QFS has some seriously talented individuals as well. Approaching Infinity is a jazz guitarist (I don't like jazz, but I CAN recognize that he is good!) and has a band, goes on tours and that sort of thing. A very active life in addition to being a world class thinker!

Thanks, Laura! I was very lucky to have been taught by one of Canada's (and the world's) greatest jazz guitarists. Unfortunately, jazz isn't very big in my town here, so I've been focusing more on song-writing and playing in more of a rock group, but we try to incorporate jazz elements. Jazz in an interesting form of music for me because it's so diverse. On the one hand, it requires an almost complete mastery over one's instrument. This is something I lack, as you basically need to practice 8 hours a day to keep up that kind of level of musicianship, and I made a choice to devote my time to things I saw as more important. Perhaps in another dimension I'm going down that road! ;)

As well as mastery, there's the fact that jazz is improvised. The form is provided, but within that form the dynamics, solo structures, rhythms, etc. are all improvised. With good jazz, you can't even tell--everything comes together, however there are lots of harmonies not present in other styles which may sound unusual at first. Louis Armstrong and Django Reinhardt were two masters of improvisation. Every note they played sounded like a composed melody. There's still a lot of jazz I don't like, but when it's done right it can really move you emotionally. But nothing beats live jazz in a small club!
 
What I'm trying to say abstract, that the idea of producing some music that will please the others, this being your main motivator to "change" your playing, could be worth reconsidering. I believe that most of us musicians start to play and sing because there's something inside us that wants to come out or that we want to communicate. If we are sincere and produce genuinely that which is inside us, those attracted to those particularly emotions/ideas, will feel satisfaction. But it could be worth considering which part of you or which "I" this "heavy metal" guitar music is representing, and is this the character in you that you want to enhance and communicate to others? And what types of people would this be attracting?

Well...actually, i've always had the capability to play all kinds of different stuff, I can enjoy a lot of kinds of music, i've just done so much metal I might just wanna take a break from it, i thought.
The decision to make softer music is not really just to please others, actually, I just realized that i maybe haven't done enough of it.
 
I'd like to ask a potentially stupid question. :D Is there some way, or perhaps several ways, to measure for musical talent in someone who has no musical training at all? Someone who has had no musical instrument or voice training and with no knowledge of music theory? I’m not sure if any such measure exists or if maybe there are many different measures that, taken together, might give some indication of musical talent. I'm really curious and don’t know where to look to find an answer. The discussion of talent vs. ability got me to thinking about this. Apologies is this has been addressed somewhere else and I haven't found it yet.
 
Justin said:
I'd like to ask a potentially stupid question. :D Is there some way, or perhaps several ways, to measure for musical talent in someone who has no musical training at all? Someone who has had no musical instrument or voice training and with no knowledge of music theory? I’m not sure if any such measure exists or if maybe there are many different measures that, taken together, might give some indication of musical talent.

It's not at a stupid question at all; actually it's not that straightforward.

Early talent selection programs for children try to gauge the child's natural sensitivity to pitch and rhythm (with simple assignments such as "find the note that has just sounded", "sing this song" or "clap this"). They are also looking at the child's natural ease at the instrument, how relaxed s\he is and how pliable the hands are. The teachers also somewhat subconsciously look at how "teachable" the child is, in a rather narrow understanding: how quickly s\he picks up instructions and adjust to the particular teacher's personality. So, the initial screening is for a person who is sensitive to sounds, a quick study, and compliant. Afterwords, it's judging how well and quickly the child progresses early on.

From what I've seen in music education, I don't think those early selection programs work. Meaning, they are not superior to non-selective programs that accept everyone who is interested, and then lets people self-sort based on motivation and actual achievement. I believe that the original Suzuki institute in Japan has years of stats on that. They are a non-selective program whose graduates go into professional musicianship in very high numbers.

With voice, they would do a similar thing: trying the person's voice range (how high or how low can you go), voice mobility and a good ear (how well you accurately you can repeat a sequence of notes), and listening for the voice's overall tone, volume and tembre. These seem like more objective measures, but they are also for a more narrow task, it's not simply selecting for an aptitude to music but also for a quality of the physical instrument -- the voice -- that is going to make this music.

Advanced programs select on proficiency, not talent.
 
Hildegarda said:
It's not at a stupid question at all; actually it's not that straightforward.

Early talent selection programs for children try to gauge the child's natural sensitivity to pitch and rhythm (with simple assignments such as "find the note that has just sounded", "sing this song" or "clap this"). They are also looking at the child's natural ease at the instrument, how relaxed s\he is and how pliable the hands are. The teachers also somewhat subconsciously look at how "teachable" the child is, in a rather narrow understanding: how quickly s\he picks up instructions and adjust to the particular teacher's personality. So, the initial screening is for a person who is sensitive to sounds, a quick study, and compliant. Afterwords, it's judging how well and quickly the child progresses early on.

From what I've seen in music education, I don't think those early selection programs work. Meaning, they are not superior to non-selective programs that accept everyone who is interested, and then lets people self-sort based on motivation and actual achievement. I believe that the original Suzuki institute in Japan has years of stats on that. They are a non-selective program whose graduates go into professional musicianship in very high numbers.

With voice, they would do a similar thing: trying the person's voice range (how high or how low can you go), voice mobility and a good ear (how well you accurately you can repeat a sequence of notes), and listening for the voice's overall tone, volume and tembre. These seem like more objective measures, but they are also for a more narrow task, it's not simply selecting for an aptitude to music but also for a quality of the physical instrument -- the voice -- that is going to make this music.

Advanced programs select on proficiency, not talent.

I agree that everyone should be admitted without any "pre-testing" and let them self-select. As already mentioned, there are individuals with natural ability who have no drive or ability to persevere, and people with drive and perseverance who have less natural ability, but who more than make up for it. It's always a bonus when the two come together.

Consider, for example, one of my favorite pianists: Arcadi Volodos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadi_Volodos

I have videos of Ashkenazi, Barenboim, and others ... and Volodos. Ashkenazi is almost technically perfect, but he doesn't reveal the emotion that Barenboim has. I enjoy watching Ashkenazi for the sheer mechanical virtuosity, but if I want to get inside the music itself, Barenboim is my choice. (Well, also Horowitz who can make me cry.) Barenboim has been my favorite for years, but Volodos is now a close runner-up and closing the gap!!
 
Well, while looking for additional videos of Volodos I came across this guy: Octavian Arion - playing Volodos' transcription of Mozart's Rondo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37-Ix3BRoZY

Well, I've watched Volodos playing it and this guy is just amazing. He actually seems to do it better!

So, I poked around a bit and found some more by this Romanian fellow I never heard of before.

A little background: I'm a lover of Liszt and I've combed amazon a number of times looking for people playing Liszt nowadays. There aren't many because it is so demanding. Ashkenazy and Barenboim kind of avoid him because their hands aren't big enough. Horowitz did a transcription of the 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody that is quite clever, but I think he did it to avoid the reaches. Volodos does Horowitz's transcription too. So, I've been looking for somebody who plays Liszt in the original, and voila! Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPQe156dEgM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoiYXmjluH8&feature=related

He didn't add to or subtract from, a single note of the original composition.

Have a look at this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdlb9I7kn9c

When he's done playing and stands up, look at the size of the guy!

On another note, I read that Volodos would have been totally unknown because he "doesn't like competition" if he had not been discovered giving a private performance. Maybe that's an aspect of "talent" - that you love the art for its own sake and don't have competitive impulses about it?
 
[QUOTE author=Laura]Maybe that's an aspect of "talent" - that you love the art for its own sake and don't have competitive impulses about it? [/QUOTE]

This is interesting.

In the arts competition is almost inescapable for receiving patronage and recognition, and proves to be a major hurdle in developing truthful artistic expression because it's about meeting imposed standards. True genius often is left unnoticed and/or undeveloped if the competitive challenge is either unsuccessfully met or resisted.

The irony is, it seems to me, that an absence of the competitive impulse is more fertile ground for developing insight. Art is, after all communicating, whereas competing is battle. Warfare has a way of wasting resources.

I think how a person deals with the competitive nature of the arts speaks more of essence, and talent (gifts) being the inventory available for its expression. Maybe it could be said that Voldos' lack of impulse for competition in itself is a talent.

-Love Liszt! :rockon:
 
Laura said:
I have videos of Ashkenazi, Barenboim, and others ... and Volodos. Ashkenazi is almost technically perfect, but he doesn't reveal the emotion that Barenboim has. I enjoy watching Ashkenazi for the sheer mechanical virtuosity, but if I want to get inside the music itself, Barenboim is my choice. (Well, also Horowitz who can make me cry.) Barenboim has been my favorite for years, but Volodos is now a close runner-up and closing the gap!!
Horowitz had that amazing and unique touch! I have a record where he plays Scarlatti and it's just unbelievable how he can master the volume and "impact" of the hammers from a tiniest pianissimo to forte fortissimo and still have that special "diamond" or "ping" in every note. It is known that his piano was specially altered:the position of the hammers was lowered if I've understood correctly. While writing this I just took and watched again him playing the monumental etude op8no12 by Scriabin, amazing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1nu4bxR1Ow&feature=fvw

I love Barenboim also, specially when he plays Mozart - such complete musicality. In small doses I like also Lang Lang. I know he has his mannerist and flashy ways, but under that showmanship he is truly a fantastic player. He tries to find a meaning with every phrase (sometimes maybe too much) and his technical mastery is just among the best. Here you can see Barenboim playing Mozart together with Lang Lang:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYg7JeImaM

One of my absolute favourites is also Grigory Sokolov. I have had the luxury of hearing him live playing the Rach 3, and it was just unbelievable! I highly recommend buying his DVD 'Live in Paris'; it's beautifully filmed with great close ups, and just amazing playing. In the extras he plays among others Couperin, and the best of those is a piece called: Tic-Toc-Choc. You just must take a look at this playing! This is from that DVD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOJaKbDBmoQ
 
MC said:
[QUOTE author=Laura]Maybe that's an aspect of "talent" - that you love the art for its own sake and don't have competitive impulses about it?

This is interesting.

In the arts competition is almost inescapable for receiving patronage and recognition, and proves to be a major hurdle in developing truthful artistic expression because it's about meeting imposed standards. True genius often is left unnoticed and/or undeveloped if the competitive challenge is either unsuccessfully met or resisted.

The irony is, it seems to me, that an absence of the competitive impulse is more fertile ground for developing insight. Art is, after all communicating, whereas competing is battle. Warfare has a way of wasting resources.

I think how a person deals with the competitive nature of the arts speaks more of essence, and talent (gifts) being the inventory available for its expression. Maybe it could be said that Voldos' lack of impulse for competition in itself is a talent.

-Love Liszt! :rockon:

[/quote]

Exactly. I think that's what offended me about the article that suggests work is ALL you need - you can do anything if you work hard enough. That more or less promotes the "competitive" angle rather than an environment where true talent can blossom without extreme pressures.

Now, I would have LOVED to have been a concert pianist - or even a really GOOD one - but I'm not. Even when I practiced five hours a day (sometimes more) I was only competent. I didn't have certain natural brain connections. I possibly could have forced them, but it would have taken time and effort that has been better spent elsewhere. And, if I had managed to create those brain connections with a lot of effort, then I would have had to do all the things that a talented person does naturally on top of that. So, for me, playing an instrument is just an exercise that I undertake for the main purpose of keeping my brain agile so that it will work better in other areas, and - a lesser consideration: giving myself the pleasure of small accomplishments.

It's really kind of painful to be able to get so completely inside music, but to have so little natural ability. But, that's the objective fact and another is that I have abilities to make connections in other ways that I didn't at first think was unusual, but over the years, I have come to realize is really a gift. All areas of my brain seem to be equally accessible to the others. My consciousness is not trapped in separate cognitive domains. I am easily able to transpose genetic natural history, technical and linguistic intelligence into the domain of social intelligence. I think in ways that are described as "cognitively fluid," or so I'm told.

It is said that the use of metaphor is the highest tool of thought and that the most powerful of metaphors are those which cross domain boundaries in the mind. Metaphor is at the heart of art, religion and science.
 
Justin said:
I'd like to ask a potentially stupid question. :D Is there some way, or perhaps several ways, to measure for musical talent in someone who has no musical training at all? Someone who has had no musical instrument or voice training and with no knowledge of music theory? I’m not sure if any such measure exists or if maybe there are many different measures that, taken together, might give some indication of musical talent. I'm really curious and don’t know where to look to find an answer. The discussion of talent vs. ability got me to thinking about this. Apologies is this has been addressed somewhere else and I haven't found it yet.

You could look up the Finnish researcher Kai Karma. He has developed a musicality test for children and some other studies too. Unfortunately doing a quick search I couldn't find any publications of this musicality test in English. I could look it up the next time I visit the Music Academy in Helsinki if you're interested. Maybe they have it in English, dunno.
 
I have abilities to make connections in other ways that I didn't at first think was unusual, but over the years, I have come to realize is really a gift. All areas of my brain seem to be equally accessible to the others.

Love that about you Laura, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling it. It's not only your gift, but ours as well because of your sharing (another gift).

. . .you can do anything if you work hard enough.

This is the same as YCYOR if you ask me. It seems to be a natural conclusion to the belief that all people are equal, or "cut from the same cloth," which doesn't hold to understanding things objectively.
 
Laura said:
A little background: I'm a lover of Liszt and I've combed amazon a number of times looking for people playing Liszt nowadays. There aren't many because it is so demanding. Ashkenazy and Barenboim kind of avoid him because their hands aren't big enough. Horowitz did a transcription of the 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody that is quite clever, but I think he did it to avoid the reaches. Volodos does Horowitz's transcription too. So, I've been looking for somebody who plays Liszt in the original, and voila! Here it is:

Sorry to keep this thread off topic, but just as I logged out I remembered the pianist named Marc Andre Hamelin. He is supposed to be the absolute technical super man of piano playing. He is the only pianist, or so it's said, to have mastered the pieces by Charles-Valentin Alkan who's piano pieces are supposed to be the most challenging of all. Well, anyway he does play Liszt too, so I thought Laura might want to check him out, if she hasn't done so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6BMMTHeMRM

He seems a bit "dry" in his musicality but otherwise it's impressing. This is his own cadenza in this Hungarian Rhapsody, I believe.

Added: Just finished watching that YouTube clip above, OMG what amazing octave scales this man has!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom