A little test

Discussions relating to the classical guitar which don't fit elsewhere.
User avatar
rojarosguitar
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Location: near Freiburg, Germany

Re: A little test

Postby rojarosguitar » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:33 pm

michael_barre wrote:The first thing I noticed was his right hand technique is poor. In the scalar passages he moves his fingers too far from the strings and doesn't keep them curved. He would benefit from studying Christopher Berg's book, "Mastering Guitar Technique: Process & Essence."


Could you be so kind to post a link to a video showing us how you benefited from studying Christopher Berg's book?
Music is a big continent with different landscapes and corners. Some of them I do visit frequently, some from time to time and some I know from hearsay only ...

User avatar
lucy
Posts: 1634
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: England

Re: A little test

Postby lucy » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:10 pm

rojarosguitar wrote:
michael_barre wrote:The first thing I noticed was his right hand technique is poor. In the scalar passages he moves his fingers too far from the strings and doesn't keep them curved. He would benefit from studying Christopher Berg's book, "Mastering Guitar Technique: Process & Essence."


Could you be so kind to post a link to a video showing us how you benefited from studying Christopher Berg's book?

Not sure what this has to do with the OP's questions! :chaud:

In answer to his questions, I have to say I just don't know whether playing Bach in this way is the norm, though I have sometimes heard Bach played more loosely recently. However, I for one, don't actually mind it. My only quibble, (apart from his tone quality), is that his rubato could have been more convincing. By that I mean, it could have made more musical sense. Just how I heard it!

Who says Bach should be played rigidly, even if that was more the norm 20 or 30 years ago? I'd put the change, if there is one, down to fashion.

Personally, I don't think rubato should be disallowed in Bach, but if you're going to do it, the phrases should still be clearly articulated, in line with the type of music it is - ie. Baroque music has clearly differentiated phrases (with quite strong cadences). It is often said it is architectural, so a performance should create a strong structure and not be woolly.
"Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves". James M. Barrie

Pat Dodson
Posts: 2716
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:32 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A little test

Postby Pat Dodson » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:36 pm

lucy wrote:
.....Who says Bach should be played rigidly, even if that was more the norm 20 or 30 years ago? I'd put the change, if there is one, down to fashion.

Personally, I don't think rubato should be disallowed in Bach, but if you're going to do it, the phrases should still be clearly articulated, in line with the type of music it is - ie. Baroque music has clearly differentiated phrases (with quite strong cadences). It is often said it is architectural, so a performance should create a strong structure and not be woolly.


Great to see a post that replies to Mark's question. :D

I'm afraid my fashion in playing Bach is probably, like my dress sense, 30 years out of date. Hey ho. 8)

User avatar
Stephen Kenyon
Teacher
Posts: 1425
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:26 am
Location: Dorchester, Dorset, England

Re: A little test

Postby Stephen Kenyon » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:18 am

Nick Clow wrote:Stephen, I am sorry you feel like that. You may have been reading my comments in a broader way than intended. My comments were in response to Denian. The contention that the UK has a monopoly on free speech is offensive. I also have a pet hate of someone doing or saying something offensive and then defending themselves by playing the free speech card, as if that makes it ok.

With apologies for dragging this back from the brink of oblivion, and thanks to those who have managed to make some jokes along the way. Meanwhile.
OK Nick, you're sorry I feel like that. I wonder if, given your understanding that there may be a problem with how your comments are understood you could do me the favour of confirming in clear terms that you were not stating the view that residents of the UK are more prone to bigotry than elsewhere, and specifically that you did not intend this to be understood to refer to those excercising their right under the terms of this forum to discuss a video performance (that is publicly viewable and which has comments enabled?)
I wonder if you could also acknowledge that you completely misunderstood Denian's veiled humour? Easily done, it was a bit subtle, but then, I think many people would say it was so obviously not intended to be taken seriously that anyone with pet hates about that area should have been able to tell it was not a serious claim?
I wonder if you could also explain your statement about somebody "doing or saying something offensive" - ? because on the face of it the clear implication is that you are accusing forum members of making offensive statements. Were you suggesting that?

It would certainly be appreciated, and help me understand where you are coming from, if you could explain and justify the statement "Freedom of speech has been defined as 'the right to be a bigot'." ... specifically, how you expect free speech to be exercised - including by yourself - in a forum with clear rules such as this one. In particular, I wonder if you could quote who exactly has defined freedom of speech in that way, and with what intent? And whether or not you were trying to imply that forum members discussing the video were in your view guilty of bigotry? All that without discussing politics of course.

Nick Clow wrote:Anyway it's up to you how you interpret things and I certainly don't apologise. If you do perceive my comments as criticism, it is somewhat ironic that it hurts.

No I don't think I perceive your comments as criticism, I think I perceive them as an attempt to stifle discussion and the expression of views which are perfectly legal under the terms of this forum. I think this is another example of your attempt to twist another forum member's views to fit your own world view. The irony question is particularly, well, ironic; the Oxford definition of 'bigot' of course is "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions" while perhaps rather more damagingly, the common wider definitions include references to racism, homophobia etc etc.
For the sake of clarity, the reason I say this is ironic is that it is yourself (and others, but it was yourself who raised bigotry) who have shown hostility to those holding different opinions. People on one 'side' of the debate have restricted their comments to the original post, people on the other 'side' have seen fit to try to close down the discussion, denigrate, distort and misrepresent the statements of, and sail very closely to outright pernicious insults towards the first. In doing so they have rarely even bothered to actually discuss the merits of the performance in question which, - did I mention? - is a publicly available video with comments enabled.
Nick Clow wrote:Despite Mark's and your contentions that people don't read things properly (something that does neither of you any favours), I have quite carefully read what you (both) have written and I do have some understanding of your (pl) points of view.

OK, good try with the condescending put-down, however to be honest I would say that if you have actually read what people such as Mark and I have said and you keep trying to stifle the discussion and (as others have) wilfully misinterpret people's motivations and twist their words, you are certainly not exactly demonstrating the slightest understanding or indeed respect for such points of view.
Nick Clow wrote:However, I genuinely think this thread is bad form, and I ask you to try and understand mine.

It may be, but who are you to legislate on it? That would actually be for the Moderators. Isn't the usual sensible approach to a thread one disapproves to, I don't know, not read it? It would have disappeared off the radar days ago without people trying to say it was wrong to talk about the performance.
Nick Clow wrote:Let's say this is a rock-climbing internet forum.

Yes let's, but perhaps we could use examples that actually reflect what happened, rather than inventing a parallel universe that clearly implies more undiluted vitriol towards people you don't agree with.
Nick Clow wrote:An elite, professional rock-climber posts a Youtube video of another professional climber and makes highly critical and, what many perceive as, spiteful comments about the other climber's technique.

Mark is a fine fellow but I am confident would not describe himself as 'elite'. Why distort the situation? He made absolutely no 'highly critical' comments and expressly stated that was not his purpose. You claimed to have read everything he wrote. What I wonder is your purpose in all this? Next, I wonder if you could quote one of the comments on the video that you would describe as "spiteful"?
Nick Clow wrote:Some members of the forum are genuinely puzzled that a climber would victimise another climber in this way. They are really uncomfortable and concerned for the poor sod who is being picked on.
Victimise? You do realise do you that the video is publicly available and has comments enabled? You do realise that all the comments were intended to be respectful and aimed to understand the situation the player found himself in - and if, how and why there are problems with the performance? You do realise that the likelihood of any busy professional player having the slightest care for what a load of windbags on an internet forum say about his performance has to be vanishingly small?
Nick Clow wrote:One or two people chip in to register their discomfort. They are told (with more than a whiff of cultural/colonial superiority) that they can't read and they are ignoring the questions asked. They don't understand. It's all about sharing knowledge and experience, apparently. And it's ok to run someone down if they are a professional.

Do you really, really think you can be taken seriously with a statement like "with more than a whiff of cultural/colonial superiority"? Would you care to provide an example of anybody who implied that they are superior in their judgement because they live in your ex-colonial power? Would you care to provide an example of somebody running the player down, as distinct from, purely, discussing the performance? Do you understand that there might be a difference between discussing a performance and its merits, and the performer as a person?
Nick Clow wrote:The educational piece is that, whilst the original elite and professional rock-climber may be a good climber, he is not a particularly nice bloke.
What evidence do you have of this? You said you read the OP's posts. I would really like to understand, please, how you can loftily state that there is an 'educational piece' of the nature you describe.
Nick Clow wrote:In my experience, most elite participants in pastimes, sports and arts are welcoming, inclusive and respectful of their peers. Love of their activity, karma. As several people have said, it is surprising that in music, of all fields, it is not the case here.
We evidently have different experiences of the world - what a surprise. My final point to the rock climber - and this is one that actually pertains to the case ...
A student rock climber has a climbing teacher and has seen a video which he is worried about because it seems the climber is not using very safe techniques. He doesn't seem to be that happy on the mountain, and is perhaps making some unnecessary mistakes, damaging the rock as he goes, making life difficult for other climbers, and in the worse case, being a bad example for young climbers who might take that kind of approach and end up falling off the mountain. He asks his teacher for advice, who passes the question on to a forum, because he wants to know how does one politely explain something like this to an aspiring student. Maybe its what folks do these days? And some people say, no that's not a good way to climb. I wouldn't do that.
And other people say, I'm really uncomfortable with you criticising that climber, he hasn't asked for your criticism, think of his feelings.
Not, its not possible; rock climbers would not be that plum daft.
Simon Ambridge Series 40 (2005)
Trevor Semple Series 88 (1992)
Louis Panormo (1838)
Alexander Batov Baroque Guitar (2013)

Nick Clow
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:58 am
Location: Murwillumbah, Australia

Re: A little test

Postby Nick Clow » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:45 am

Stephen

You seem to be very worked up. As I said before, it is highly ironic that the feeling of being criticised on the internet has upset you.

After 100 posts, and given the nature of your post above, there is nothing that I can add that would not be repetition or that would contribute to conciliation.

It's entirely up to you as to how you interpret what I have said and, for that matter, what you think of me. I reserve the same rights.
formerly Edward Frillypants

Lawler
Posts: 755
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:36 am

Re: A little test

Postby Lawler » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:22 am

Maybe take a breath and stop beating each other up.

We guitarists are brothers and sisters artistically, not enemies, if you take a larger view.

Pat Dodson
Posts: 2716
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:32 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A little test

Postby Pat Dodson » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:42 am

Lawler wrote:Maybe take a breath and stop beating each other up....


Yes, I'll add why: the thread has now become A little testy. :wink:

User avatar
Stephen Kenyon
Teacher
Posts: 1425
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:26 am
Location: Dorchester, Dorset, England

Re: A little test

Postby Stephen Kenyon » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:30 pm

Well Nick, you are quite right that there is no point repeating ourselves. I am very disappointed you could not bring yourself to address even one of those questions, and that you still wilfully misrepresent me entirely and as far as I am concerned, the entire situation, none or which would have blown up into this had you not chosen to use the word 'bigot' and sling it in the direction of fellow forum members you do not agree with. And no, I was not 'worked up' (there you go again) because I wrote that post after my blood pressure had returned to normal, thank you. Hence the polite-as-I-can-be questions and requests for clarification which you have ignored.
Lawler, thank you, yes you are right, though siblings often fight much more than friends.
Simon Ambridge Series 40 (2005)
Trevor Semple Series 88 (1992)
Louis Panormo (1838)
Alexander Batov Baroque Guitar (2013)

Nick Clow
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:58 am
Location: Murwillumbah, Australia

Re: A little test

Postby Nick Clow » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:22 am

Stephen

I had hoped this loathsome thread had died, but I have just seen your latest post. Despite all common sense telling me to let it drop, here is one more response from me. After this, you're on your own.

You may be disappointed in me, but I tell you what mate, I have been more than 'disappointed' in this thread. It is the nastiest thing I have ever seen on this forum and I am so glad that it was not only me that took offence.

You blame this 'entire situation' on me. Pretty rich. We are here because of offence caused by the initial posts on this thread (including yours) that some perceived as spiteful victimisation. Period.

Your post above (in which you use my name 10 times) comes across as frankly unhinged and seems like something addressed to your inner self rather than any serious attempt to communicate with someone else. I have long ago replied to you specifically on the comments above and I am not going to repeat myself. I'm an adult and take responsibility for what I say and do. If I felt I needed to explain myself to you, trust me, I would.
formerly Edward Frillypants


Return to “Public Space”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], bluetoby, CommonCrawl [Bot], Digory Piper, Nick Clow, UKsteve and 16 guests