Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 678910 13> |
| Author | |||||||
TODDLER 
Forum Senior Member 
VIP Member Joined: August 28 2009 Location: Vineland, N.J. Status: Offline Points: 3126 |
 Posted: September 11 2013 at 09:41 |
||||||
I'm not sure if I quite follow you? Not a hundred percent that is. I do have a question and allow me to explain the best that I can. When I was 8 years old and only playing the chords to Beatle songs and the single note phrasing to "Wipe Out" by the Surfaris or "Walk Don't Run" by the Ventures...I would go to my father, play something for him and ask what it meant? At that time my knowledge of theory was the size of a pea. I would play something which I had thought I came up with on my own and being 8 years was a acceptable excuse for thinking so. He would tell me what it was...even though I didn't understand. A tri-tone (Devil's interval), or augmented. I figured out half of a scale just by experimenting on my own and then he would show me the rest. I am NOT bragging and that would be ignorant...so in point..I believe there is something natural within those who become decent musicians even before the teachings of proper theory. Do you believe that is true?
Do you believe that from basic training...Steve Hackett may have wrote some of the ideas for "Horizons" when he was a child? I'm not stating that he did, I'm stating that it happens. It is very possible that he could have came up with some of the ideas for the piece when he was a child. I know myself and other musicians had those experiences at a young age.. Maybe it was expanded upon and sophisticated craft developed at age 20, but my point is that music can channel through a human who contains only the very basics such as the names or memorization of 3 or 4 chords. That channel exists and is very powerful when you have talent..although you must have the desire/interest to develop it. A abundance of talent is like a military kick in the face and will bring down your confidence to a state of emotional breakdown. It's good to apply breathing techniques and remain in a humble state or fantasy of one and develop your natural abilities to master something very historical, beautiful and melodic, with determination/hard work...and I'm talking about between 12 to 15 hours a day all through your teen years. The reaction you get from a MAJORITY of society is mainly based upon their pitiful observations of YOU. Somehow, or some way...most people in my life or in the lives of other musicians find something VERY wrong with your devotion. You are young. impressionable, and doing music recitals, playing the high school "Battle of the Bands', studying Classical guitar to give a performance at the school's talent show or music program...and getting standing ovations ..while almost everyone is STILL placing judgements upon your character in this life.
From my experience..the average intelligent person is under the assumption that a kid, teenager, adult who locks themselves in a room for that extended time has psychological problems to do it in the first place. It means...no sports (or very little), no dates ..only performances for my male friends who were on dates, and your few childhood friends who express their disappointment in your lack of attention given to them. This all started in the 60's for me and escalated beyond when I became an adult traveling the road performing. This social reaction is very distracting from the art if you lack confidence and as I say it is constant burden for the musician. You don't even have to insult yourself with concern over what people in general think. It's just always there. On the days when you are feeling vunerable and someone may state..."What kind of a person stays locked in a room all day and night practicing an instrument'
You must somehow accept that most people see something definitely wrong with it and please dismiss music college as I am making reference to people who are devoted to domestic life. It's difficult....you have a master raising his voice because you are not putting enough feeling into a Bach piece that you've already had memorized for 4 months. You're still not putting enough feeling into the piece. You've studied the manuscript and it is complete, but the teacher wants to see what YOU can do with the piece. This experiment/teaching involves unorthodox methods which involve the study of music theory itself ...maybe only 25 percent. This is the ultimate step for a young musician who has developed and expanded on his abilities. What can you express through the piece? Live and think for yourself. I remember hearing..."Throw away the music and just play" Play the piece through memorization, yet along the way the teacher gives you pointers on how to relax and think for yourself. I remember..."I'm not asking you to play the piece differently",' I am listening to how you express the piece musicially" At age 15, I was shocked by those statements. I had no understanding at first.. Like 5 students are seated before a professor who has chosen a piece for them to master over a course of time. Out of the 5 ..there may be one student that plays the piece with finer sounding dynamics indicated in the manuscript than the remaining 4. The teacher later pulls that student aside to discuss their talent. It's not about becoming a teacher's pet or personal favorite..but more about how the teacher can push you further than the other 4 students. I'm not making reference to how musicians will record a special prepared arrangement of a period piece or a slightly different arrangement transcribed. It's just that the concept that thinking for yourself is vital if you take music seriously and understanding that concept at a very young age helps a great deal.
In my 20's, I traveled with Jazz musicians who would often talk about expressing yourself and define it with the following: "Going Inward", "Feeling it", having "Feel", "spiritual", allowing the music to channel through you, "expression", and even a dark hole. Which sometimes musicians were scared of the experience and defined it as that. These musicians were 20 and 30 years older than me in the 70's. Eventually...I made the simple observation that by expressing yourself, you wipe your mind clean of all thoughts, and something naturally channels through you. Many superb vocalists told me that when they sing...they feel like someone else. They further explained that they wait for the right time when a energy force channels through them. This has been going on for years in my life where musicians mention this unknown territory. The development of a naturally talented student is a pure enjoyment for a music teacher..unless that teacher is jealous of you. Those who are not quite as gifted have to work much harder. I believe you have to be born with talent and it becomes a debate for those who are skeptics and refuse to relate the science of it in connection with a so called experience that is not logical. They don't accept the possibility of this unknown territory...which many musicians claim it exists...and instead have explanations for what the musician is experiencing revolving around music theory. Musicians often make claim to 2 seperate worlds, 2 seperate plains and it is a little metaphysical for skeptics, mentally off balance to some religions that see it as supernatural/offensive and judged as psychotic behaviour by the commonly known shallow person of the world.
Edited by TODDLER - September 11 2013 at 10:02 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 11 2013 at 14:38 |
||||||
It is well known here that I regularly fight on the side of science, but only against bad science, never against art. If someone makes an unscientific claim using pseudo-science then I will reach for the metaphorical textbooks and throw myself into the fray. But not this time. Art is not the product of science even when science can go someway to explaining the fundamental processes of the art.
I believe people are born with natural inherent traits, abilities and talents, but skills are something that are honed and perfected - regardless of how naturally gifted someone is they still need to learn and practice to develop the skills needed to realise their natural talent - no one is born with the skill to pick up a guitar and play like Steve Hackett even if they were gifted enough to pick out a basic tune by ear within a few hours of first picking it up. The best musicians in the world got better with practice, experience and learning - we have a natural inclination for music but no natural technique - that has to be learnt.
Music is a natural human trait - we can all compose music, every single one of us: we can all hum, whistle or sing a tune without learning how to do that. If I said: sing this sentence, we all can do it and we'd all sing it in a different tune. We can all clap, stamp, dance a rhythm, even quite complex ones, again without ever learning how to do that. If I said clap a walking beat we can all do it. Harmony is also something we are all capable of recognising without learning: we don't have to to be taught how to listen to music to appreciate and like it, we naturally know what sounds harmonious and what sounds discordant.
This comes from, and is related to, our natural ability for language and aural communication, our languages (regardless of what native languages they are) have natural rhythm and pitch - we do not talk in monotones at a constant robotic tempo. Expression in our communication is conveyed in changes of rhythm and pitch - the rising intonation at the end of sentence for a question, the increase in pitch and tempo when we become agitated, the drop when we are relaxed, our emotions determine the music of language. Those changes in pitch we use in everyday speech are harmonious and harmonic, especially in conversation where we adjust the tone and tempo of our speech to match that of the person we are talking to, we naturally harmonise and synchronise with them if we are in agreement (we even use musical words to describe it such as "an accord"). [we conversely become more discordant and arrhythmic when we are in disagreement - "a discord"]. Conversation becomes a call-and-response, often in a sing-song rhythm (there goes that old iambic pentameter da dum da dum rhythm again). All humans have a natural ability for music, even if they are inept at singing or playing an instrument. Music is a natural human development.
I can demonstrate this further by looking at every civilisation and culture on Earth - every one of them has developed music, often in complete isolation from another culture, and while they may seem foreign and alien to those of us brought up on the Western even-tempered scale, they are fundamentally the same - all of them have the same harmonic intervals between certain notes that will produce pleasing harmonic chords. Because of that they all have pentatonic scales where all the notes are harmonic with each other, whether that is Celtic folk music, Hungarian folk music, West African music, African-American spirituals, Gospel music, American folk music, Jazz, American blues music, rock music, Sami joik singing, children's song, the music of ancient Greece and the Greek traditional music and songs from Epirus, Northwest Greece, music of Southern Albania, folk songs of peoples of the Middle Volga area (such as the Mari, the Chuvash and Tatars), the tuning of the Ethiopian krar and the Indonesian gamelan, Philippine kulintang, Native American music, melodies of Korea, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, China and Vietnam (including the folk music of these countries), the Andean music, the Afro-Caribbean tradition, Polish highlanders from the Tatra Mountains... (list knicked from Wikipedia). [edit: Indian ragas are pentatonic]
This also goes all the way back into pre-history - a 12,000 year-old flute has recognisable note intervals that (while not perfectly tuned to our modern interpretation of pitch) we can play a recognisable tune on today. Even Neanderthals produced a musical instrument that we believe approximates to a modern minor scale based upon the hole-spacing in the fragment that survives. A different species of human created music that we would recognise as music - unlike any other animal - birdsong and whalesong is not musical, they do not have the harmonic intervals that we would call "notes".
This is because harmony is a mathematical relationship, something that the ancient Greeks first documented back in antiquity - why two notes that are played together sound good can be described in mathematical terms, that same mathematical formula then works for every musical system ever used by mankind. The theory supports the reality of what happens naturally, never the other way around. We developed music naturally based upon what worked and what sounded good - the theory of music came later to explain how and why it worked. Of course you can then use the theory to fabricate music, (if you must), but that is not what music theory is for, nor is it what it is all about, you cannot synthesis emotion, you cannot be subjective using a theory.
But that is not to say I am not sceptical about any "spiritual" interpretation that you would apply to the creative process so I remain sceptical to the explanations you give - of unseen forces, of other plains, of the supernatural, of channelling... while offering no alternative explanations of my own other than it's what we do. The creative process is something that humans do all by ourselves, using our own brains, skills and abilities. I can create music, paint pictures, take a pencil and draw a recognisable likeness of a scene, object or person, clip wire mesh to form an image (see my avatar), I can use tools to fabricate objects, furniture, sculpture, I can invent and construct electronic devices to do all manner of things, I can write a stream of words that can form discourses such as these or be fashioned into narratives or lyrics for a song. I don't know precisely how I do all that (or any of it), I just know that I can but I don't ascribe that to any external metaphysical state of consciousness (or whatever) - even when I'm "in the zone" or "in the groove" or the creative juices are flowing. Moreover, I believe that everyone is capable of doing this - we all have the ability to be creative, the concept of "can't do" is simply "won't do" - I've never held with "can't do", I may be a terrible composer/musican, or a dreadful painter or an abysmal writer, but that has never stopped me from having a go. [When I'm feeling particularly playful I occasionally play a brainstorming-type game: when anyone asks me for an idea, or for ideas, I give them 50 - not 49, not 51 - but exactly 50 - most of them will be silly or impractical but some of them may be useful and one or two may even be good ... I simply don't believe that there is a limit to creative thought].
However, if what you explained works for you then I have no problem with that, if what Pedro describes works for him I also have no problem with that either - I just don't think it is the real explanation, nor do I believe that it is a universal explanation that works for everyone in the same way.
Edited by Dean - September 12 2013 at 02:28 |
|||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17524 |
Posted: September 11 2013 at 19:24 |
||||||
And this is important in the "exercises" in acting, and other arts. The issue being that well tempered and knowledgable folks have a tendency to defend what they know and not exercise what they don't. Not everyone mind you. There are some great folks out there.
Indeed of any age. It's almost like saying that a grown man or woman can not have visions and see thngs that are not here yet, or might not ever be in our/his/her lifetime. There is too much out there that is "unknown" within the creative circles in any art.
The talent and touch from my experience is always there. It's a matter of that person having the chance and opportunity to find out how to learn this and perhaps take it to an area where something can be done with it. This process takes time, and I had a chance to help someone here in Vancouver who did some magnificent drawings. She always called them "angels", from her own upbringing, and I'm not about to argue that point, since she knows what she can see, but all I did was help develop the sense of seeing to the point where she could FINALLY describe it in a format that we can SEE IT. This does not happen over night ... but in the end, what she had was the best "energy drawings" ever made by anyone. And they all start with just plain scratches all over the page and they are fast. But the artistic "sensibility", for lack of a better word, is already there ... she is a magnificent arts and crafts person. The desire to take it somewhere else is tough, different, and another story. It is one thing to know something and all that, but another to be able to translate it into an art form, that you can make a living from, and that was a bit too hard and difficult for this person in question, but the work is there and supports a lot of the things I have seen and said. I started this "exercise" with her by going back to "basics", and then we took it into a mediation format, so she had a chance to "see it better", which, I hoped would help her be able to "translate" all that into a piece of paper that you and I could see and come to a reasonable understanding of what it was. However, how we see it, is still different, but I can tell you that many folks could relate to it, but they did not know how or why. From an invisible perspective (as I call it for myself), it had to do with some of the colors and the way the "vibrations" moved. The only person that EVER discussed these ehteric fields in detail, is Carlos Castaneda, in a couple of books, but there are way too many things in those books that a lot of folks don't like, unffortunately. But one is the best dreaming guide ever written, the other is the best vision guide ever written, but they were written in terms that were extremelly difficult for others to understand, without him ever mentioning the actual human experience directly. Sadly, this is the same thing with the translations of the Bible and many other books. The words fail the "events", and they end up creating/inventing stories that have no inner value whatsoever. FOR ME, and it is important that you see that, the one thing, I do not EVER want to see in my life, is that spark eradicated, or distorted grossly. This "spark" is good in all humans in many forms, of which music is just as good as acting, as it is for you or I at work, in our dedication, for example. There is a certain amount of "discipline" you have to apply to it (musical teaching, if you will) to help make it visible, and appreciated.
This was the part that hurt me the most, that it took me 10 to 15 years to recover from, when I finally was able to start using the language properly. And it is also the part that is difficult for me, for it is in this area, where a lot of folks tend to think I don't know what I said, or meant, and the more usual one ... the normal discussions about some elements in music here as you are probably already aware. It is also the part, that makes (or breaks) an artist come alive or not. At some point, you have to come to grips with it, or it won't mesh and your distance from "yourself" will cause you to lose touch of the very "source" you have been taking dictation from. This is why we all need to re-invent ourselves so much, in order to keep things fresh, and where I appreciate folks like Peter Hammill and Roy Harper, so much ... and the realization soon pops that ... you're just living life! But it's inner spark, is so sharp and keen that you can't help not notice it and find it all the time. For someone trying to color an entity with crayons, as adults, which is what so much of the new stuff is for me, is the part that is hard ... we're being told, to believe in something that is not as good, as the original ... that is, for me, that has so many colors, fibers and visuals, as to be neat, far out and so valuable to the inner life of a person like me. Thus, something like RUSH, is fine, but lacks the depth to go beyond a certain point, that most people feel that a "lyric" is enough to say you believe in it. And for me, I know this not to be true, and it's just another song in the "A Star is Born" famous picture of Judy Garland, with the pastel pink in the background ... a pure movie set and you are confusing it with a reality ... to the point where people tend to believe the image ... and not the truth behind it! The story ... YES ... it is fine and nice ... but the rest is an imaginary tale in the best child traditions of any art ever done ... and movies are perfect for that.
My only issue with this, and it happens in acting with the old school instructors versus the new school instructors, is that the "feeling" that you are supposed to inject into Bach, is the ACCEPTED, and EXPECTED version that you have been told and heard in multiple recordings is "right". And then, the different interpretations have a problem with the academic world. This was brutally brought out in history, by rock and jazz ... MAGNIFICENTLY ... because they brought out the "animus" of the experience, instead of an idea of the experience, and this is an issue when it comes to defining "music" and other arts ... the 20th century was all about the dismantling of the previous ideas to create something new, and rock and jazz, have brought "attitude", "electricity" and "continuation" to the table that will likely change the course of music history, as it has other arts ... they see a Picasso, and all of a sudden everyone does pink, and then blue, and then cubism! This is the main reason, why I do not like the definition of "progressive" to be so specific, to elements that are not necessarily about music, as much as they were the "visual interpretation" of the moment it was created. And that artist had the gumption to bring it out, whereas it would have been destroyed and mangled down if it had gone to the college of music! But, there are some that made it through ... and a Stravinskly is a perfect example that the academic side can also do this, but it had to give away to something completely different, that few understood then ... but no one questions a Petroushka or Firebird today! To me, the "progressive" definition has enough material to have a definition that will make Robert Bresson and the others pale in comparison to the Manifesto they created!
Many movies about that. I have always looked for and reviewed them, and I will make a stronger effort to bring these to my website ... I still have to upload 350 of them, and the majority of films I went for always had something about the music or the artist. It was, even though it was a movie, a way to see and try to get a better feel for some artists. In some cases it was hard and very different, but (for example) Fred Haines film of "Steppenwolf" with cartoons for many passages, was actually a lot of fun to deal with, and helped one understand things like "The Magic Theater" a lot better than the book did ... you were ... seeing it, so to speak. Un Coeur en Hiver -- the French film ... is very big on that!
Both have to work just as much ... but making a science of it is difficult as it tends to vacilate and change too much for the expected results and "tests" that create the science. Again, the "science", and WHAT we have come to call the "science" is an AFTER the event situation and we have to learn that this is how we identify and describe our environment, but the terms with which it is described might not be adequate to explain the whole thing. For the "arts" the recolution of the 60's and 70's that brought out so much music experimentation is a perfect example ... sure some of it died ... and some of it became commercial ... but the source for it all ... is alive and well, because it is an energy that you can not kill! It is not an energy that you can invent. It is something that is right there, inside us all, that you can tap ... and sometimes we have to say ... if you are strong enough to do it, as (again) there are family, social and what not situations that change this equation more often than not. Mostly they dilute it! This is, the same reason, why so many "spiritual" paths tell you that it is an individual path ... funny we tell you that practicing an instrument 10 hours is not healthy, and then we come to find out that meditating deeply for the same amount of time is the healthiest thing you can do for your body in your whole life! There is, in that moment a very disconcerting distortion that takes it away from its true spirit ... like the "light" is not true, but the book is, kind of thing! I'm not sure that the gifted have to work harder, or vice versa ... it is all a matter of application and some are more efficient than others at it for whatever reason ... and it is like Deepak Chopra telling you that he has never been to a doctor in his life! We have to accept the differences, and then see if we have the courage to try something else ... and in general ... and in "popular" locations, it is hard to do individualistic things ... because not everyone is attuned to that as much as we would hope, but even that would be a thinking desire (that is the bad word, I tell you!) on my part! Sort of like my review of the Neil Young film ... perfection ... is just doing it. Has very little to do with anything else and what anyone else says. Reminds me of Peter Michael Hamel's book "From Music to the Self" when he gives us the example of the man sitting with an instrument with one string ... and he is saying "I got it ... I got it" ... and everyone around him is saying ... "Got what?" ... and all too often guess what we are doing? ... the very same thing! And in the end, we are just afraid of doing it, or not sounding right or better than we think we can do! In a scientific sort of way, we are just not allowing ourselves to be ourselves, but an image of ourselves. Sorry to make this long ... you had a nice write up ... and so did Dean ... what a trouper and I am just floored and in total awe to the dedication and desire to be able to actually sit and think of his own inner creativity ... Thank you very much. I have loved doing this.
Edited by moshkito - September 11 2013 at 19:39 |
|||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 13063 |
Posted: September 11 2013 at 21:33 |
||||||
|
|||||||
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17524 |
Posted: September 16 2013 at 10:48 |
||||||
So, Steve will never be a composer, or a creative man ... because Bach has done it all, and Steve hasn't! Ohhh and Steve can't see things, or have neat ideas about stuff and music he wants to do and Voyage of the Acolyte is just another piece of sh*t pretentious progressive crap that he couldn't write!
I doubt it!
|
|||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 16 2013 at 10:55 |
||||||
But that isn't what he said. Read, comprehend and fully understand before flying off the handle.
 |
|||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 13063 |
Posted: September 16 2013 at 21:16 |
||||||
Yes, Mosh, your indignance is definitely silly, if I may quote Graham Chapman as this juncture. What I meant was that Steve Hackett, for all his eminent talent, didn't write "Horizons" in a vacuum. He was certainly influenced by J.S. Bach; in fact, one could say he borrowed: If Steve wrote "Horizons" as a child, it was definitely after classical guitar class.  Edited by The Dark Elf - September 16 2013 at 21:18 |
|||||||
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17524 |
Posted: September 18 2013 at 10:12 |
||||||
For today's standards, we can say that he copied, or was inspired by it. By yesterday's standards, 50 years ago, when all there was, was a LP, maybe ... MAYBE ... and having heard it on radio, or possibly even in school ... it might be a bit too easy to say that it was copied and shows the inspiration.
I think that as time goes by, with all the recording of everything under the sun, pretty soon it will be stated that no one can compose anything anymore because it was already done by someone else! I have to admit, I don't like that ... but there isn't a piece of music out there that any of us can not say ... sounds like ... ohhh guess what ... looks like it was taken from Albinoni's blah and blah, and then creativity is dead ... I'm not sure that the arts would survive as a valuable asset to anyone's life ... if that is all there was to it!
I came from a house of literatii and intelectual everything you could think of ... if there is one thing they do not appreciate, or care for, is "modernism" in any form ... even I, as a writer, will never be accepted by them ... why? ... there already is a GOD and you are subserviant! to ALL the ideas that justify the GODS ... but NEVER the children ... thus ... guess what ... Steve and his compadres and friends and music ... I stand up for it ... because I am just like them!
Last example ... a professor in Italy that has written several critical books and such, and is well respected in her field, read my screenplay ... and when she wrote me ... she asked why did I use "personal symbols" instead of universally accepted symbols ... and when I told her, that I had no idea what she was relating to, since this is what I saw, and I did my best to translate it to a written format ... and she never replied ... and guess what we're doing ... telling Steve he can not create something because it has already been established?
This is something I don't do ... and one of the things that to me is most important in "progressive music" ... it's creativity ... and I do not put it down ... even if I might make fun of it in places ... it is way too important for me and the work I do ... I am about the arts that the 50's and 60's and 70's brought to us all, and the extension of those arts ... pretty much anything I say is about that ... sometimes too much to! Edited by moshkito - September 18 2013 at 10:13 |
|||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Polymorphia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 06 2012 Location: here Status: Offline Points: 8856 |
Posted: September 18 2013 at 10:52 |
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 13063 |
Posted: September 18 2013 at 20:09 |
||||||
"By today's standards"? That is a bizarre statement. By any standards, he did some copying. If Hackett's beginning riff after the intro harmonics isn't instantly recognizable as Bach (and it certainly is), then I have a Vanilla Ice download of "Ice Ice Baby" I'd like to sell you. "Horizons" is a wonderful acoustic piece, but it is a variation on a preexisting theme. As far as your pretentious reiterations of how you grew up in a "house of literati and intellectuals", I frankly don't give a damn. I grew up in a middle class household and paid for both of my degrees out of my own pocket, but that has nothing to do with the discussion. Likewise, your muddled examples and vague pseudo-philosophical meanderings do not shed any light whatsoever on what was discussed. The only germane snippets you offered to the topic was a series of might haves, could haves and maybes, which leads me to believe you are grasping at straws. |
|||||||
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17524 |
Posted: September 21 2013 at 12:14 |
||||||
Only if you are not capable of thinking in quotidian terms. You think today and you is right and the world was totally screwed up and wrong 50 or 100 years ago!
My comment, and example was very clear ... but you have no concept of what it was like to know and listen to music 50 years ago ... when no one around you knew a whole lot of music! You had to depend on schools to learn it ... and even then, not all schools were that great and most high schools only had 5 or 10 LP's ... so saying something was copied is kinda strange ... you took the album home and memorized it, and you didn't have a LP player?
Very weird!
It is possible that it is inspired and may sound similar ... but as I stated before, pretty soon, no one can compose anything, because it has already been done! No one will ever be original again ... and that latitude has to be opened up and appreciated somewhat!
What you don't see here, is that there are inherant limitations to creativity and the ability to create something else, when your "teachers" and "fathers" ... or PA if you will ... keep telling the children they can't do anything ... and that is the worst thing you can do for your children ... but do you care enough to even make an effort to understand that?
The academic side, obviously, has its magnificent things ... but it also has some bad ones ... and guess what ... you are placing limitations on me and my ideas like so many folks have all my life in the academic world. You're not even capable of discussing the actual subject matter and see what it was like to listen to music 50 years ago ... or maybe 75 or maybe 100 to have any idea of what I am saying.
Again, inspiration MIGHT have something to do with something one heard ... it might ALSO not be the case!
|
|||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 21 2013 at 12:48 |
||||||
I know what I understand that word to mean, and as a stand-alone sentence I also know what I understand that sentence to mean. But in context I do not have a clue what you are talking about.
Could you explain in simple words to an illeducated thicky like me what you think the word "quotidian" means and what the phrase "thinking in quotidian terms" means and then explain it in context? Because as the hour fast approaches 7 pm my four cats will demonstrate their capability of quotidian thinking...
|
|||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005 Location: Lilliwaup, Wa. Status: Offline Points: 5319 |
Posted: September 21 2013 at 13:11 |
||||||
|
Please don't make him explain it......
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Polymorphia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 06 2012 Location: here Status: Offline Points: 8856 |
Posted: September 21 2013 at 14:52 |
||||||
On top of that, it's extremely obvious that Steve Hackett did steal. And you know what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. He was referencing Bach, because Bach was a huge influence on him. Composers over the centuries have referenced their influences with stolen themes. It's not a bad or new thing. Steve Hackett even recorded an album with six Bach Pieces on it. Not to mention that Hackett probably learned Bach by sheet music and not by LP. Having studied classical guitar, he probably had a fair amount of Bach sheet music anyways, as they are standard repertoire for classical guitar. Back then, you had way more mediums to experience classical music than rock music (concerts, sheet music, classical radio). And the LP was not, by any means, rare, as you seem to imply. This is the 70s we're talking about. Not the 1900's. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7951 |
Posted: September 21 2013 at 22:44 |
||||||
I second everything you've said, except that I recall Steve Hackett saying once at a concert that he doesn't read music. I recall from his biography that he was an avid listener of classical music as a child, encouraged by his mother. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2013 Location: WA Status: Offline Points: 4596 |
Posted: September 22 2013 at 00:14 |
||||||
I'd also add that Steve's 1978 classical guitar/flute piece "Kim" was a clear interpretation of the style of Erik Satie's solo piano compositions. In the year 2000, Steve (on classical guitar) and his brother John (on flute) released the magical album "Sketches of Satie" where he paid tribute to this composer by rearranging a whole album full of his compositions for classical guitar and flute. Was it a bad thing that Steve based Kim on a Satie piece? Not at all! Satie was obviously an influence and as the saying goes, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Besides, if it wasn't for the "Sketches of Satie" album, I never would have discovered the wonderful music of Erik Satie for myself.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
twosteves
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2007 Location: NYC/Rhinebeck Status: Offline Points: 4091 |
Posted: September 22 2013 at 08:20 |
||||||
|
Steve Hackett has freely admitted in many interviews that he has "borrowed" from many of his influences and even joked about it---it's not like blues based rock groups haven't ripped off old blues musicians too---I think it's more if you make it your own ---I respect this kind of artistry way more than clone groups sounding like cheap imitations of great prog groups which I can't stomach.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Polymorphia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 06 2012 Location: here Status: Offline Points: 8856 |
Posted: September 22 2013 at 08:59 |
||||||
 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17524 |
Posted: September 22 2013 at 11:53 |
||||||
|
Hi,
I did not state that Steve could not have created something on his own. Inspiration might have been at play and he worked something out of that ... so what?
It's weird that you state that you have to be progressive, and in the same sentence, you state that he is not being original, and creative, and all of a sudden the "progressive" and exploratory side of a musician is not allowed or possible.
"Quotidian" from Wiki:
In general, and specifically in the arts, it is the relationship of any work to its time and place and space. This is specially valid in the field of literature and the arts, where historical critical essays, tend to study the time and place to be able to better understand the reason for it being there, be it in words, paint or score. Catch the beginning of the "krautrock" special, for a true example of a "quotidian" study, and how a lot of academia looks at the arts ... which we are afraid to do, because we do not study them enough to even have any idea what the fudge is happening!
However, this is more "visible" in literature, and much less clear in music and painting, because there are no sign posts that tell you ..." I copied Bach", or "I copied James Gurley" or "I was inspired by Frank Zappa" (hello Faust!) ... on the piece of music ... though it might have said it was inspired by Bach or Zappa! As for your cats, you will have to ask T S Elliot ... he might have some interesting sets of words about their hunger!
But this is about "improvisation" ... not the rest ... so let's get back on topic, and I don't care if Steve Hackett was inspired or not by Bach ... the piece has a very different feeling from the one by Bach, and the inspiration stops at the notes ... not the musical piece. Sometimes I think that all we hear is 5 notes, and don't close our eyes, and just feel the trip and the music ... and consequently, everything is copied from/by everyone else.
The point of most "improvisations" is to help you get in tune to find your own center ... sure something is going to "sound like", but it isn't the same, because you are not the other person!
|
|||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 22 2013 at 12:34 |
||||||
I have no idea who you are talking to here, it's obviously not me. And since the only person who has used the word "progressive" in their posts of late is you, I can only assume you are talking to yourself.
I recall saying that I knew what I understood that word to mean, and as a stand-alone sentence I also knew what I understood that sentence to mean. But in the context you used it, I said I did not have a clue what you were talking about. But thanks for the dictionary definition, can we have pictures next time?
Nope. You've lost me. You've jumped from a dictionary definition to an abstract use of the word that has no contextual references or explanation. Whatever clarity you think you have imparted has not helped me understand the pseudo intellectual put-down: "Only if you are not capable of thinking in quotidian terms."
Now you are just rambling and wandered so far away from my question I'm don't think we're on the same page any more, hell - I'm not sure we're even on the same chapter, or the same book.
Edited by Dean - September 22 2013 at 12:35 |
|||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 678910 13> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Improvisation
Topic Options
moshkito wrote: