• Forum Index
• New Message
• Search FretBuzz
• List of Forums
|
|
|
FretBuzz: Miscellaneous Forum Message |
Initial Post
|
To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
Jon Hermansen
(3348)
Miscellaneous Forum
2/5/2010 9:30:51 PM · 42 Views
|
It seems to me that, yes, even on this great musical site(a four page discussion on accoutics""), there seems to be, like everywhere in the world of music, excessive, and even pointless analysis of things that, at the end of the day mean nothing.
The simple question that must be addressed is that why when reading the writtings of the great composers, there is clarity and sense, when on the other hand when reading the great players or musical academics, there is no sense, and in fact the writtings upom most subjects of musical conception-theory, harmony, meter, technique, and the like, written by the best in the field are crappy, nonsensical, and for the most part not very helpful. Check this out for yourself-go to your local library and check out even a basic book on music and you will find it to be mostly pointless. The most we know of Bach, and upon the brown of his own views comes down to the simple point of putting the fingers in the right place at the right time, yet when one reads a musical analysis by a great harvard man on Bach, there is hundreds of pages of nonsensical rubbish, every measure is unclearly analyzed to the point where you do not know what is going on after the first page of the commentary. Yet when Bach speaks it is simple and downright concise, practice and develop the feel, in other words gain confidence through rigourous practice, and henceforth the key and eternal element of music will arise and that is instinct. A biologist may think that they know the wolf, yet are they one.AH"""
Another simple example of this argument is this-video games-you may have played a very physical video game where only practice dicatates the move, and someone watches and says-man-how do you do that-well the person perfoming the move has no answer-for it is now part of the subconcious mind. The mechanism of perfoming this great move is now encoded in the instinctual apparatus of the brain, thus leaving the peformer at a loss for words, I dont know how I do it, I just can.
Thus we are dealing with hundreds of years of musicology written by generations of musicologists who have no real feel for the instinctual underpinnings of what a great composer thinks or really feels, they believe that the composer like themselves were musical robots, devoid of feeling and filled with analysis, scrutininizing every note as if music was written in only one way. Yet Bach and all the rest were inventive, mystic, extremely imaginitive, and of course spontaneous in there music. Thus the anylytic aproach employed by our payed genuises at the universities is largely masterbatory material, or at best it is meaningless.
Thus to conclude this newest rant, remember play, think playing, and question, yet never microscopically analyize your playing; all that this exercize will do is lead to doubt, and double tracking. You will find no certain answers for as we have found all along is that the greatest lesson of music is its mystical subjectivity, and not it scientific certainty. If we try to give music a one and done formula it will cease to exist. Thus feel music, for god sakes dont think it.
|
|
Responses (continued)
[ Pages:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 ] |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/8/2010 9:11:04 PM
Barney Brazitis
(16874) wrote:
I agree and have ranted much and continue to do so every now and then that MUSIC CAME FIRST, and theory is just the alphabet and vocabulary that was devised organically to describe and remember what was done.
So, practice much and let your ear start to dictate what your fingers do.....
|
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/9/2010 10:26:35 AM
Jon Hermansen
(3348) wrote:
Barney you nailed it. |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/9/2010 2:41:48 PM
Adam Furay
(960) wrote:
looks to me like we have a whole string of posts defining musical analysis based on an inability to grasp it. And on that note, I have never seen so much text that said so little. To paraphrase my cheeky post, leave it to the pro's guys. If you don't get it, it isn't the authors problem, its yours. Think i'm rude? This post is insulting to the extreme to those of us who have worked hard to see the correlations that exist in music over the centuries in an order to preserve and reproduce, and create. All I see here are insecure wanna-be's who want to be considered "musicians" in a society who's standards exceed their potential. Good luck AB. |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/9/2010 3:22:37 PM
Barney Brazitis
(16874) wrote:
All I ever say is, teach noobs a musical experience FIRST, then analyze it for memory and familiarity. I have been a pro for many years and I remember in school being taught notation BEFORE requiring any sort experience of making music to estalish a frame of reference.
I have studied Cuban folkloric music for 30+ years and it's all rote, and there never seems to be an issue performing music. They just don't ever write it down, similar to being able to speak, but never bothering with reading or writing.
I spent years notating the Cuban stuff, and I don't regret a millisecond of it, because I enjoy the ability to understand and analyze such things, but there are many great musicos who don't give a hoot about scholarly volumes written about what they do.
So I always encourage folks to get some experience using their ears first then learn the notation. It just seems to make sense to me.
There is no one screaming to burn all theory books and ban the writing of notation. And there is no call to string up the learned (myself included) who have made painstaking efforts to preserve the knowledge through the printing and explanation of notation.
I see by your teaching profile that you have extensive experience and are certainly a great musician. I am also an experienced and seasoned pro, so when you blanket this discussion as: "insulting to the extreme to those of us who have worked hard to see the correlations that exist in music over the centuries in an order to preserve and reproduce, and create " you are mistaken. Both inexperienced musicians as well as those of us with extensive knowledge are here in this discussion, so if you feel threatened, that's a personal issue.
When you say:
"To paraphrase my cheeky post, leave it to the pro's guys. If you don't get it, it isn't the authors problem, its yours."
are you trying to discourage? I think that you just don't want to bother with folks who don't want to fathom theory, but please be honest.
To then sign off: "All I see here are insecure wanna-be's who want to be considered "musicians" in a society who's standards exceed their potential. Good luck AB" certainly appears to me as somewhat myopic. I suggest that you read "Lies My Music Teacher Told Me" by Gerald Eskelin. It is only his OPINION, but it has some good points.
I guess I'm just saying you can disagree with a bit more dignity given your standing and experience.... |
|
| |
| | |
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/13/2010 8:44:26 PM
Roger Gumbs
(27051) wrote:
Barney, I got what you were saying...It all comes down to musicians who are theorists, and those who play because it's a hobby.
My one guitarist knows theory very well, but let me tell you, his ear isn't all that great....and his ability to jam isn't very good either. He admits it too.
We play covers, and at times, when I have to tab a song out, I sometimes make a song my own. I do so because sometimes it sound BETTER....to ME. He'll hear something that strays from the norm, and will figure out if the note fits that particular mode/scale, because of his knowledge of theory. He always says the notes I pick happen to work out. Different methods are used to arrive at the same conclusion. It all works.
He learned everything at a young age(he's 47), and admits he'd never have the time to do so now. I personally don't have time to learn theory. I have a job which can be mentally tiring at times, so I play in bands, and play bass as recreation...a hobby. To each their own.
.....why did I post this again??? :) |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/13/2010 6:18:04 PM
Jon Hermansen
(3348) wrote:
I grasp musical theory quite well, and use it every day, however here are your words "worked hard to see the correlations that exist in music over the centuries in an order to preserve and reproduce, and create" You said the word cenuturies well congratulation thats when we had such minds as Von Bulow, or the great writtings of Abby Whitehead, or Rubinstein, and even the great Aaron Copleand had wondeful things to say, yet these men and women were composers, now I never in any of my writtings attacked the great thinkers of the past, rather I am attacking the s--- that is replacing the gold, SO FIND THE GOLD AND GET OUT OF THE GARBAGE-It took me two years to check out Rubinstiens sypmosium on piano technique, I ordered it, on an interlibrary loan all the way from Germany, and finnally a year ago it came, that is the effort I demand. Your rubbish in the univerities today, well were is the great music of the day, where is Mozart, Liszt, Bach, Brahms, or Wagner, they were reading there own theory, and you have to go get there sources not the ones that perpuate crap. There was obviously something in the water back then, becuase today we live in a musical dessert, and am I to blame you or Barney, no-I blame the deletantes who are in charge of our finest universities, for advancing musical theory into the realm of a science and destroying it. I do not blame Ramuau, or Kuhnau, I blame the fools that have dispensed with the great ancient texts. You said Centuries and I with full heart agree. |
|
| |
| | | | |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/16/2010 4:52:25 PM
Jon Hermansen
(3348) wrote:
Dave as long as you understand the written word, can analyize it, and not get freightened by it, and the fact that you have a great mind for questioning, and wondering,means that you will you will be fine, it is those who think they know the universe those are the ones you have to remove from your brain. The search for theory that you are embarking on, is a challenging one, yet you seem to be on the right path, for your heart is in the right path, and being that you are asking the right questions and being that you understand such complex philosphical issues means I will loose no sleep on your behalf. However, use your libraries, and find what works. Go basic, at first, and build your theoretical wall, and apply your own music to the standard. Keep seeking comrade,for that is what makes a musicians life somewhat tenuios, it is a constant search. |
|
| |
Wagner and Schopenuear is the key to the argument
2/16/2010 5:04:54 PM
Jon Hermansen
(3348) wrote:
This is the end of the argument, you know Richard Wagner, and you know that was in exile for seven years, and his music, at this time, was second best, well like us all he became obsessed with Musical interpration, and analysis, yet took it to such a pitch that his art was suffering, and in his exile he came across the works of Schopenhauer-the musical philosopher, and what I am is saying is nothing new hear adam it is a simplified summary of what Schopenauer wrote, and being that Wagner was obbsessesd with his doctrine of music as being an un materil form, or that wich is air, Wagners heart changed, and he began to compose from the heart and the head was removed, and this is the moment where Wagner became the cult that he is today. Why they still have the Wagner festival in Beuruth do they not, so am I right, no, are you right, no, is Schopenaur right-well the results are definitly there, wagner is a huge influence on modern music wether we like it or not, and in a more sick way a great influence on human history-(look up Niethcze, Wagner and Hitler) And it Was Schopenhauer that gave him the courage to be that-So adam let us both cut s--- and read the great German Philospher Shopnehauer, or for the more techy people google it, for these people probably could not read past one page. I am not a Wagner fan per say, yet it would be folly to deny his monolithic influence over the 20th century. |
|
|
More Responses
[ Pages:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 ] |
|
