guitar

I'm using this post to express my frustration towards and respect of the guitar. I've been playing for 5-6 months and it has by far been the most engaging and frustrating subject i have studied. The best way I can think of it is learning a new language. At first I had no knowledge of theory so I started with that and that becomes like the vocabulary of nouns and adjectives that can be said at any given time. But then of course is the problem of speaking them fluently which has been the more difficult part for me. I have built all sorts of model boats and cars and have done woodworking before, and the subtelty and technique involved in guitar is similar. Guitar is very mathematical, not only in the theory, but in the way it is played: the angle the pick hits the string, the arch of the stroke, the way the whole arm must be exactly precise. There are so many variables and sounds that must be controlled and it has all been very frustrating and fascinating. I have been learning Spanish over this time period too and it is similar in idea to the guitar except one is done with your hands and the other with your mouth. I hope to be more fluent in both areas in the future.

Arts Week Performance

I thought our performance did really well to highlight what improvising is about. It was impressive that we took suggestions from the crowd and actually made coherent music out of it with some feeling behind it. Since suggestions like "Burning Monkey" can't be composed, they must go on feeling, and that was one of the nicest parts of this class: that people like me who have played before but have limited knowledge of theory can find their way into the music. When I was playing, especially on saxophone, it was like crawling around in the dark unti I found something that works and then I would crawl around and find another note that works. It sounds painful but it was fun and I think our whole group actually benefited from our lack of knowledge because it forces you to go by ear and feeling rather than previous knowledge. This way we played notes that shouldn't have been played and probably sounded extremely strange but eventually worked out, making it all the more interesting. I think we could have benefited from a longer playing time, because its hard to get a good jam going right away and sometimes the best parts only come after fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes of experimenting. On the other hand it would have been tough for the audience to listen to a 40 minute jam.

culture and music

As I struggle to learn guitar I can’t help but think of all the players who are self-taught, although I’m not sure self-taught is the right word. It is definitely possible to teach yourself how to play an instrument, but I don’t think you can teach yourself what sounds good, I think that is all in your ear. If someone isn’t telling you every step of the way why this note is good and that one bad, the kind of recognition of what sounds good is more of what the culture you live in thinks sounds good. If nobody is teaching you any theory on why this and that sounds good, then it is up entirely to your ear to decide what to play, and your ear decides based on what it has heard already, which is your culture’s music. The interesting question would be, what does someone play who has never heard any music, what would they think sounds good? Or is it an impossible question, is it impossible for someone to have not heard any music at all?

audience-performer

The relationship between audience and performer is more complex than what is present at just one show. It is constantly evolving relationship that changes as the artist changes, or as the audience changes. Music is meant to be heard and therefore an artist must have an audience for his music and he must trust that the audience genuinely appreciates his music. In the same way, the audience must trust that the performer is playing genuinely and not only doing so to please them and get at their wallets. So I guess what I'm trying to get at is the line that the artist must draw between pleasing the audience and pleasing himself. If he wants to please only the audience, his music may be shallow and he will not trust the audience for listening to it. On th other hand, if he wants to please only himself, his music may not be heard by many and he will not have any reaction to judge it by. The point of my ramble is that the audience must trust the performer and the performer must trust the audience on however large a scale. They need eachother, otherwise both of them will be disillusioned as to what the music really is.

Blog 2

The reason I missed class on Tuesday was because I went to a Eric Clapton/Steve Winwood concert in NYC Monday night and couldn't make it back in time. It was an amazing concert and the music was great but I would have rather not seen it in Madison Square Garden. I think with an arena that big it is hard for the artists to establish any kind of connection with the fans, it is just one great big horde of people (close to 20,000 I think). It was obvious that the two of them (and the rest of the band) had practiced extensively, every song was really tight and there was little deviation from what seemed to be the plan. This was nice because the songs sounded great but I also would have liked to see them screw around a little more. I think because there was so much money involved in a concert like this though, they stuck to the plan and executed it perfectly. The highlight for me was without a doubt Voodoo Chile because it seemed that they cut lose more so than on the other songs. It sounded almost exactly like the 15 minute version that Hendrix did with Winwood in the 60's but Clapton still managed to add his own style to it. For me, this felt like the most improvised because with the drawn out jams and long solos from Winwood's organ and Clapton's guitar the crowd really had time to get into it and react, as opposed to the other songs which were shorter. I think that the reactions from the crowd probably affected the way that they played on this song more so than the others. It was a good concert but I would have liked to see it in a smaller venue where there wasn't so much pressure on them to be perfect and where more interaction with the crowd could be had.

Blog 1

Coming into this class I wasn't quite sure what to expect and where I wanted to go with it, I just wanted to play some music and have fun. I also didn't exactly know what "Improvisational Music" was but now I realize that its nearly impossible to describe. There are so many variables involved with "improv music" that its hard to describe, except that it is flexible and reacts to different inputs. When I think of improvisational music, the first thing I think of is jam bands like Phish/Grateful Dead but my views have widened since I came to the class. I now think that any kind of music can be improv as long as it is reacting or being being affected by some kind of input/output. Playing a cd through a radio I don't think is improv music because it will not react to anything or change; the music was created and therefore improvised at some point but it is no longer changing. I think listening to live music, no matter what kind, is witnessing some degree of improvisation. A jam band like the Grateful Dead is obviously reacting to a number of factors, namely eachother and the crowd when they are playing. But even if you are listening to someone play Beethoven note for note with no variation, there are still variations because nothing can be played exactly the same twice unless it is a cd on repeat. The musician is still reacting to the piano, the music and the audience and some kind of relationship is existing in some way and so I think it is still improvisational although maybe not so much as other forms of music.