The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=237229



Message

guitarbuddha -> The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 7 2013 14:15:54)

So here are two statements.

'The guitar is probably the easiest instrument to learn a few things on but the most difficult in my opinion to really play at a high level. ' From a valued poster here.


'The guitar is an instrument which is really hard to play badly and really easy to play well' Which is oft quoted and attributed to Pepe Romero, but it has a timeless quality and may be much older.


So which is right ?

My opinion is that both are attempts to encapsulate a lot of information in a short space. Both are worthy of consideration.

It can be really tempting to outdo one pithy phrase with another which is seemingly contradictory. And sure we see a lot of politicians on TV and that is the way they go about things.

When we argue in this way we are strongest when we are at our most stupid. Nothing makes contradiction easier than missing the point.

So for me both of these statements offer us an opportunity to think about the guitar from differing perspectives. If I were to choose one over another or to urge someone else to do so then I would be letting both myself and anyone foolish enought to listen to me down badly.

D.



Ricardo -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 7 2013 16:48:11)

Well, I see both statements saying the exact same thing. Which restated is this,
Anything that is well with in your circle of ability to execute, will come off really well in performance, making one appear to be quite at ease with the instrument. And conversely anything that you attempt that is outside of your skill level or perhaps simply not well rehearsed, will come across as awkward and un clear, sloppy, and make the instrument SOUND very difficult to master.

Because I see both statements pointing to the same concept (get your technique together so you can actually express something beautiful that you might feel inside without the instrument getting in the way), I get EXTREMELY irritated by the constant careless remarks of "critics" that so and so plays with ONLY technique and no feeling...or too many notes...etc that sort of nonsense.

Ricardo



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 7 2013 17:29:42)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

I get EXTREMELY irritated by the constant careless remarks of "critics" that so and so plays with ONLY technique and no feeling...or too many notes...etc that sort of nonsense.

Ricardo


Yeah that's another annoying attempt to set up a dichotomy. Depressingly a lot of people eat it up. I would rather just be honestly jealous of someone with a terrific technique.

D.



rogeliocan -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 7 2013 18:38:48)

quote:

remarks of "critics" that so and so plays with ONLY technique and no feeling..


This is something that I have though of some players. It does not take anything from the fact they have amazing technique but to me, and this is only an opinion, what is played sounds like something is missing, something important. Like a computer playing extremely difficult passages but lacking feeling, like Data in the Next Generation if you are a trekie. And for a flamenco player, at times I have thought, with reason or not, that the piece is too clean, too perfect (while it isn't from an interpretation point of view... again my opinion), and sometimes, I also think it is because a classical player is playing flamenco.

It does not take anything away from their amazing ability to play, but it sometimes sounds like a fast mechanical piano.



krichards -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 7 2013 18:58:48)

quote:

'The guitar is an instrument which is really hard to play badly and really easy to play well'


Is that really what he said?
Sounds 'arse about face' to me



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 7 2013 21:02:14)

quote:

ORIGINAL: krichards

quote:

'The guitar is an instrument which is really hard to play badly and really easy to play well'


Is that really what he said?
Sounds 'arse about face' to me


'Sounds ares about face to me'

Keep trying !



Miguel de Maria -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 8 2013 2:45:43)

To me this means, when you've not mastered the instrument, it feels awkward, effortful, perhaps painful (barre chords?). When you have mastered it, it feels easy, because it is. If your technique is efficient and the music properly prepared, it just flows.

Ricardo, your statement about techique seems to set up another false dichotomy, the point of this thread was to refute. Someone can have a perfect technique and we can all envy that; yet his playing can also leave us cold because he's not saying anything or we aren't getting it.



z6 -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 8 2013 6:15:30)

The guitar is as easy as you make it.



krichards -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 8 2013 8:06:18)

quote:

'Sounds ares about face to me'

Keep trying !


Well I have tried and now I'm really confused!

I still think the original quote is the wrong way round. Whatever Pepe Romero actually said, surely he meant to say this;

'The guitar is easy to play badly and hard to play well'

That's certainly been my experience anyway.



z6 -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 8 2013 10:11:51)

No need to fret budd. Nobody is listening in any way to which you allude.

That solved. They're both mistaken. And add disingenuous to timeless. The guy might be a great player but he was probably drunk and talking to a disciple.

He was aving a larf.

Easy and difficult is ****. Flamenco is super easy. Classical is super hard. But only because Classical doesn't exist.

Hot Club gooves are either super easy or you're not doing Hot Club grooves.

Picado is super easy if it's picado you're doing.



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 8 2013 10:48:02)

quote:

ORIGINAL: z6

The guy might be a great player but he was probably drunk and talking to a disciple.

He was aving a larf.




Nope it is one of his pet phrases.

Think of it like this, you see someone running in the park and they make it look easy. Well they are running well and for them it feels easy too.

You see another runner and they look kinda klunky and uncomfortable. They are not running well and it probably feels hard to run. And they, no matter how fit they get, will probably always struggle with injury.


There are many interesting aphorisms, for example

'The more things change the more they stay the same'.

'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink'

'There are none so blind as those who wont see'

And very often aphorism quite deliberately flirt with paradox. To suggest that an aphorism is simply wrong with respect to it's construction whilst defaulting to the most banal of interpretations only really works in some narrow social circles.

So I might say of the first one 'The more things change' .

'Well thats just stupid, the opposite true.' .

It might make a good joke but if I appeared to be in earnest I probably wouldn't be given much credit.

Likewise the second 'You can lead a horse to water',I might say

'I CAN make it drink, I just hit it with my rhetorical hammer until it grudgingly sips'

And at that an onlooker chips in with,

'Horse, what horse, you don't have a horse !'

Then he triumphantly flounces off with the rags over his eyes wet with tears.



machopicasso -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 9:49:04)

quote:

It can be really tempting to outdo one pithy phrase with another which is seemingly contradictory.


Well, I'd say that one ought to refrain from the pithy phrases in the first place. (Of course, that's not to say there are no short, concise, and extremely accurate statements). Striving for accuracy and clarity is a good maxim.

I would also say that the "temptation of 'winning' an argument' is unfortunately not restricted to the pithy phrases.



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 10:41:39)

quote:

ORIGINAL: machopicasso


Well, I'd say that one ought to refrain from the pithy phrases in the first place. (Of course, that's not to say there are no short, concise, and extremely accurate statements). Striving for accuracy and clarity is a good maxim.



I would also say that the "temptation of 'winning' an argument' is unfortunately not restricted to the pithy phrases.



So with regards to the second half.[&o]

And as to the the first sometimes striving for accuracy leaves more room for determined obtuseness in replies. The pithy exposition can cause less despair as, with sufficient determination a motivated person can miss any point.

D.[:o]



Blondie#2 -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 11:36:48)

quote:

ORIGINAL: krichards
I still think the original quote is the wrong way round. Whatever Pepe Romero actually said, surely he meant to say this;
'The guitar is easy to play badly and hard to play well'


Nope, its the right way round and its entirely correct, you are missing the point and the subtleties involved. Its all about effort and efficiency.

One source is one of William Kanengiser's effortless classical guitar tuition videos, for example. Kanengiser studied with Pepe and refers to this quote, explaining what Pepe meant. It's a clever play on words and very true. Fast forward to 4.00 minutes in:


I think I might have seen it also in Pepe' book, but I don't have that and would need a good reason to dig it out from our University library archives just to check.



krichards -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 14:08:34)

Ok I get it, I think.
What he should have said was something like;

When played well, less effort is needed because its more efficient, and when played badly, more effort is needed because its less efficient.

If that's what he actually meant, it would have been more useful if he'd actually said it.



Blondie#2 -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 14:46:21)

quote:

ORIGINAL: krichards

Ok I get it, I think.
What he should have said was something like;

When played well, less effort is needed because its more efficient, and when played badly, more effort is needed because its less efficient.


Don't ever think about a career in marketing [;)]



Miguel de Maria -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 15:06:07)

Drink this beer and you will, once you've gotten used to the poor taste, be somewhat satisfied by the cool sensation in your mouth and the slight alcohol content! Although women will not find your jokes any funnier, you will think they do, so you will be somewhat content for a short time! Because it's "Lite Beer" you will be drinking only 100 empty calories instead of 150, but because it tastes weaker, you will drink approximately half again as many beers! Drink our beer! We're not exactly the best, maybe slightly better than the bottom 10% of beers!



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 15:21:38)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria

Drink this beer and you will, once you've gotten used to the poor taste, be somewhat satisfied by the cool sensation in your mouth and the slight alcohol content! Although women will not find your jokes any funnier, you will think they do, so you will be somewhat content for a short time! Because it's "Lite Beer" you will be drinking only 100 empty calories instead of 150, but because it tastes weaker, you will drink approximately half again as many beers! Drink our beer! We're not exactly the best, maybe slightly better than the bottom 10% of beers!



Whereas tablature will do nothing at all to advance your musicianship it will puff up our books and convince you that a lot of paper makes up for terrible editing and sloppy work. Placing as few as three bars on a page will aid the studying process if you should choose to have the music propped up by the TV ten feet away. We trust that our dishonesty will convince you that we are your friends as we will never ever challenge the validity of the many antiintellectual decisions that you have made because your fundamental lack of stick-to-it-ness. Remember our more scrupulous competitors are being driven out of market because of the efficiency with which we exploit your ignorance so go on pick a winner pick Mel Bay. CDs may contain midi renderings of guitar pro files as our authors may not be able to play the crap we agree to publish.



n85ae -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 9 2013 17:39:35)

So you're carrying on your attacks cross-thread these days? Nice.

quote:

Whereas tablature will do nothing at all to advance your musicianship it will puff up our books and convince you that a lot of paper makes up for terrible editing and sloppy work. Placing as few as three bars on a page will aid the studying process if you should choose to have the music propped up by the TV ten feet away. We trust that our dishonesty will convince you that we are your friends as we will never ever challenge the validity of the many antiintellectual decisions that you have made because your fundamental lack of stick-to-it-ness. Remember our more scrupulous competitors are being driven out of market because of the efficiency with which we exploit your ignorance so go on pick a winner pick Mel Bay. CDs may contain midi renderings of guitar pro files as our authors may not be able to play the crap we agree to publish.



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 10 2013 0:29:07)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Comping-Styles-Guitar-Bruce-Arnold/dp/0786671742/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1373415508&sr=8-4&keywords=mel+bay+funk+guitar

This is the book which inspired my post. The accompanying CD is indeed a midi rendering. The 'studies' are indeed cut and pasted and transposed on a computer by someone who clearly can't play the music he is presenting.

Interestingly there was a guy here a while ago who was negotiating with this publisher. He and I had the odd argument about music theory. Hanging around here he got the impression that what I was saying about music theory was marginal and unimportant or quite possibly ****.

I am really sorry about that because he failed the music theory element of the course he was studying which he had thought was well in hand and for which he had spent a long time saving for. I hope he passed his resits but they must have been expensive. He was thinking of quitting.

There are some serious students here, best not to give them the wrong impression about things. I think that it would be best that they pick up as much as possible for the long journey ahead and not be encouraged to rush off half cocked.

This forum is by no means all about you Jeff, but you are welcome to pitch in with whatever you have to offer. Almost anything would be more interesting than your opinion about me which even I don't find very interesting.

D.



krichards -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 10 2013 6:59:09)

quote:

Don't ever think about a career in marketing


Well, I never have, but thanks for the advice.

This thread is proving too much for me. I think I should get back to my workshop and stick to what I know best.



Miguel de Maria -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 10 2013 15:12:40)

GB, I wanted to respond to your Mel Bay rant (which seems to have been taken the wrong way by the others):

I started off learning how to play with softcover Mel Bay books back in the late 80s. That was what I had. I didn't like them and always considered them kind of cheesy and low quality. However, a few years later, I was studying CG at college and saw the LA guitar quartet at a festival; and after the show, my teacher and I saw two old guys standing near the stage, signing autographs. One was Chet Atkins, the other was--Mel Bay! The way it was setup, you could get the autograph of one, but not the other. I chose to go and get Mel Bay's autograph! It was kind of an ironic joke, but also kind of for nostalgia.

Now it so happens that I have in front of me: 2 Stanley Yates repertoire books, 1 Esteban de Sanlucar Book, and one JS Bach Cello Suite books. The flamenco one has tabulature, the others do not; they are all from MB. A couple of the classical ones did come with CDs. Stanley Yates is a premier, world-class interpreter of Bach. These are the things I am working on now. It seems strange that after all these years, I have Mel Bay stuff in front of me!



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 10 2013 15:26:07)

Yeah, I was trying to find an analog with your beer thing and it kinda got taken the wrong way.

MelBay has some great reissues on their catalogue.But some of it is really annoying.

Stanley Yates is a world class Bach interpreter ?

For the Cello suites I got the set transposed for violin (up a fifth) and they are easily sightreadable on guitar and you will have more executive control (pm me if you want em).

Interestingly MelBay also reissued the second lot of Shearer books a few years ago so they do have stuff I would reccomend. But a lot of it is a waste of time and paper for example the one I posted (which is tablature free but also virtually idea free) also they have taken to reissuing old books in multiple editions such as some of the Barry Galbraith stuff trebling the amount of paper and the expense. They will pretty much publish anything these days. Their Jorge Morel book has like one hundred bars of music total in a pretty significant package. About four pages of music in reality.

Also that Jeronimo dvd company was advertising its book by theamount of pages. Two three and four bars on a page. It is like selling bacon by the slice and each slice a nanometre thick. Also those books with a thiry page transcription of a three chord pop song really get on my goat.

Regards

D.


D.



Paul Magnussen -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 10 2013 16:08:04)

quote:

I get EXTREMELY irritated by the constant careless remarks of "critics" that so and so plays with ONLY technique and no feeling...or too many notes...etc that sort of nonsense.


How do you know they’re careless? I could name a dozen players that seems (to me) to be true of without effort.

There was an interview with Rafael Riqueni a decade or two ago wherein he said he hated his own playing, but he had to give people what they wanted to earn a crust. Did you see it?



Miguel de Maria -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 10 2013 20:44:28)

The Stanley Yates stuff is all great bang for buck, if it's up your alley. I am studying with one of his students, so it makes sense to use those editions (But thank you for your offer). He also has a great essay on ornamentation and elaboration in the cello edition as well as including the original notes (and a CD of suites 1-3) I have his Albeniz edition, but it's not too much for my liking. As far as him being a world-class Bach interpreter, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement among classical guitarists.



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 10 2013 22:47:00)

I watched a video of Stanley Yates going through some repetoire and it was OK. Most provincial music colleges will have at least one guy of comparable standard.

I have a degree in classical guitar Miguel and I would always choose to work from the Cello original (with the exception of the one which was originally written for lute). The Violin edition preserves the fingering of the cello and the string relationships and it is simply amazing how well this translates onto the guitar (G to E for violin and E to E for guitar). So it is really easy to get a playable arrangement together.

Although I am not familiar with Mr Yates Cello edition I would urge caution. In particular with regard to position choice and the way it disconnects from the sense of the music (Yamashita's violin sonata and partita editions are particularly bad for this). Also the preservation of the original key progressions (in relative terms) makes it easier to get an insight into Bach's procedures and even his 'hot licks' and common devices, pet keys, and fairly systematic use of open strings.

A lot of editions also try and take advantage of the guitar in a way which either distorts the architecture of the piece or is simply plain bad partwriting.

I can get through the violin edition of the cell suites in about twice the time it would take to listen to it and I am really no great sight reader so it wouldn't cost you a lot of time if you are. We had a thread a while ago on fun with sheet music with some tips on Bach and how to use small sections to study guitar, dunno if you checked it out.

Most people still consider Barrueco (a pupil of Shearer) to have published the definitive set of Albeniz transcriptions.

Anyway just be glad you haven't gotten hatemail from lite beer fans.

D.

D.



Miguel de Maria -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 11 2013 3:14:24)

GB,
I'm going to have to disagree that your average provincial college has a player like Stanley. Here he is in 1990!



The idea of "rolling my own" is appealing, and I'm sure I'll do that eventually. If not for the cello suites, something in the future. Thanks for your thoughts.



guitarbuddha -> RE: The Temptations of 'Winning' an Argument (Jul. 11 2013 16:12:22)

That was good. Sounds like the Gordon Crosskey arrangement Nichola Hall used to play. Certainly elegently fingered and well played with great rhythm. And I meant no disrespect to Stanley it's just that there are lots of great classical guitarists out there.

D.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET