z6 -> RE: Does understanding letra help guitarists? (Aug. 29 2012 13:35:54)
|
If accompaniement were brain surgery who would you want operating on you: 1. Ricardo 2. El Kiko 3. Kevin El Kiko would tell your family he meant well, after your certain death. Kevin would explain he was more rigorous than someone else, somewhere, and might have a better chance, than someone else, of saving you, maybe. But you would likely be able to chat with Ricardo after the recovery. Kevin, please don't take this as a blanket criticism, as I enjoy hearing from a perspective such as your own, but you keep using the word 'rigorous' and you use it a lot. You claim rigor for your pets and lack of from some others. It all sounds a bit 'Life of Brian' to me. For example, is your field of study predictive in any way? Does the 'rigor' tend towards the first or second statements below: 1. And the little yellow men shall rule the earth and the great birds will rain fire.... (but we know who said it and when and why he did) OR 2. Eeeeeee equals em see squared? (and no matter who said it, or where or when, it's still true?) There is a difference. Many 'ologies' (not all) believe themselves to be 'rigorous' but seem unable to properly define the 'rigor' they claim for themselves (in a manner most of us might accept as 'rigorous'). Your posts are replete with compelling evidence that you must have misunderstood the meaning of 'rigor'. This is important. Rigor is not a word to brandish as evidence itself, it is simply one of the requirements that can lead to knowledge beyond simple personal opinion (whether those opinions are seemingly shared or not). Ricardo isn't having his ass kissed, as Kiko believes, because he can play, it's because he's correct. And his posts are incredibly rigorous, it seems to me, while Kevin talks 'about' it in a kind of airy-farty way. (Nothing wrong with that but you don't get to own being rgorous just for claiming it.) Here's the proof, Kevin, just in case you thought I was being rude: You said: "Also, McGuire is a freak, the exception that proves the rule. It will be interesting to see his protege Roberto as he matures." Indeed, the exception proves the rule is wrong. There's no rule. That's it... Finito... done... (In fact, your addition of 'Jason's protege' into the mix is an example of this counterfiet rigor; it is as misguided as it is patronizing. It is frippery; sleight-of-hand, at best.) Until you fully understand that 'rigor' cannot be simply claimed, like a right of one's particular branch of ethno... flamenco... then the rigor you crave will not, cannot, appear. Your 'subject' is too broad and too complex. Too many subdivisions must be made, too many opinions dressed as rigor. You are limited by your toolset. There's nothing wrong with having opinions but know that that is what they are. Their 'rigor' is nothing but a delusion. Mathematics, physics, are insanely simple compared to human creativity. Kiko wants it to be true that a literal reading of words cannot 'harm' because such a thing is easy for him to do. But such a thing could remain forever out of reach to the non-speaker as to make it impossible. It could harm in a variety of ways to 'learn' letras or 'understand' them (whatever that might mean because Ricardo and others here have already shown how we can connect with music/art even when we are not aware of the words, or apparent meaning). It's all 'stand by your man', no? It's nuthin but country, right? Ricardo said 'on your toes'. That's it, right? Accompaniement is a tightrope walk, or juggling, no? It needs many skills but the 'exceptions' here (Florian, Ricardo, etc.) appear to do it very well indeed. I'm indebted to those of you who posted (particulary Ricardo.... smoooooch). This is gold. I now know the mountains in front of me a little better. And I don't have to 'know' the words outside of the 'knowing' of which I am capable and which really matters. Wonderful thread. Thanks to all.
|
|
|
|