Miguel de Maria -> RE: PDL says you dont need to study ! (Nov. 7 2013 19:18:26)
|
Z:I have to say I don't have acces to your vulnerability data so that I can compensate. M: writing a bunch of incendiary, half-baked lines meant to offend is called "trolling" here on ye olde internet. Z:You're conclusions are a bit Clement Freud in a dogfood ad to me. M: No idea what that means, but it does sound good. Z:I'm 55 and I know I can get there. (Of course I'll croak before you think me puffy-shirt worthy.) But only because of this place, and the peeps within. M:anyone can wear a puffy shirt, it's all in the attitude. Z: I just meant I 'could' play well but the better I got; to the point of flawlessness, the worse it felt. M: That will occur in any discipline. Ricardo said that the better he got, the further Paco away Paco seemed. It doesn't invalidate the struggle or the "existence" of an art form! We could learn Carulli etude-level pieces to the level of improvising them. We wouldn't because that would be lame, as CG is not a living art form. We could possibly even learn to improvise in a baroque style, if we trained for it and didn't have to waste time with Renaissance, Romantic, and Modern music. Z:The technical foundations imposed a real price. Which is wonderful because now I only play for fun. For many years now. M: It was the standards you were holding yourself to. Virtuoso music and not missing a note, like a recording. You will not learn to play like either Bream or Paco (if you could, you're being very patient hanging out on this forum). Z:Flamenco guitar has highly-evolved internal structures across many dimensions that make it 'easy' and fun. M: like other folk music--blues, rock, etc. Z:And the very thing that I craved (as a musician) seems that it cannot not happen. M: Are you saying that you realized virtuoso CG would never be as easy and fun for you as folk music? I think most of us come to that point, (we give up) and that's why we also play around with other styles, even give up CG. Some people realize they will never play flamenco that well, so they give it up. Z:As long as I don't kid myself. Erik, for example, exemplifies, more vividly than I could, the 'fight'. Ricardo exemplifies the certainty of purpose. But my basics were fundamentally flawed. (Nails then start over.) M: Fundamentals are the main thing, aren't they? Actually, it's about the process, not the product. Whoever has the most fun, wins. Z:I can now 'fix' my technique. I can repair it. I can feel exponential advancement. M: Sounds like a good place to be. Z:Miguel, nobody has fugues and concertos in multiples of fifty or more in a guitar repertoire. You could fill a bus with the number of thirteen-year old pianists, even I've seen, who can. M: You're exaggerating, of course, but no one said piano wasn't better suited for playing complex music than guitar. And classical piano has a much better feeder system. College kids who started playing rock is not the best nursery for classical music virtuosos. Julian Bream, best CGer of them all for me, might not have been infallible in concert, but the guys now are. These are kids in their twenties who hardly drop a note in a whole evening. But the bit in Almoraima, after the Uhd/ood/ i dunno The arpeggios. Could Williams, and he is in my opinion, a towering genius when he plays; could he do that, at speed, and if not, why not? (You will be graded. This is serious stuff.) And I get ancy when I hear 'people' talk about guitar composers (in a particular fashion) when we have such astonishing talents, worlds above many 'classical guitar' composers, among us. It only seems 'personal' when I apply the correct label. It's not a reflection on people who claim to enjoy it. But has anyone anywhere ever put Duarte on a playlist for enjoyment? I listen to Ricardo's album at least three times a week. The Old Grey Whistle Test, cheese-free wonderfulment. Nuance, i tell ye! [/quote]
|
|
|
|