Young player having fun

thegummy · December 2017

I don't get why people are making assumptions that the kid is somehow cruelly forced into practising guitar against his will lol

Pretty sure he does like playing the guitar; it's just that his parents are indulging in the cringe and, unlike a primary school child, they should know better. But like I said, there have always been parents who love to show off their little angel, it's a sitcom archetype.

The idea that instrumental music somehow comes from sad life experiences, though, is ludicrous (and pretentious) to me. Makes me think of rap and how people will hear a song that they love the sound of but then retrospectively decide it somehow doesn't sound good if they then learn that the person doing the rapping didn't actually do the things he rapped about or doesn't speak in the same accent that he raps in. It's like saying George RR Martin didn't actually meet a dragon. Except, this is even more absurd because instrumental music doesn't even refer to life events whether real or fictional, it really is just music.

Clarky · December 2017

pia98jf said:

Clarky said:
jeez...
no matter what the style of music... it's just notes..

Ha, ha and I suppose a Picasso painting is just “lines on a page”. If you don’t get it, it can’t be explained so I don’t think this discussion is going to go anywhere.

ok... no probs

I'd like to think however that music is something that I get

thegummy · December 2017

Art is actually a good comparison - the idea that random splashes of paint or geometric shapes etc. represents some deep concept is the same kind of pretentiousness as the idea that guitar notes come from a life of struggle

siraxeman · December 2017

Teetonetal said:

Clarky said:

pia98jf said:

Bucket said:

You pile in on this kid for not knowing what it really means to have "the blues"...

But you all love Clapton don't you? A comfortably well-off white man from Surrey. Last time I checked, never enslaved by anyone.

Do you actually know anything about Clapton’s life?

jeez...
no matter what the style of music... it's just notes...

you really don't have to have had a dreadful life to be able to play with tremendous feel and passion..
you simply have to have the ability to feel the music, play from the heart and be able to project it..

Absolutely. Some people can just channel emotion into music. It's a gift and in my opinion upbringing has little to do with it.

It also doesn't have to hardship and heart wrenching. Some people can channel pure joy into their music.

Gotta agree....i never bought into all that nonsense you have to really have had sorrow n heartache to be able to play the blues.

guitarfishbay · December 2017

D minor is the saddest key

Clarky · December 2017

thegummy said:

Art is actually a good comparison - the idea that random splashes of paint or geometric shapes etc. represents some deep concept is the same kind of pretentiousness as the idea that guitar notes come from a life of struggle

I agree and disagree...
I agree that great playing does not require a tragic life struggle..
bending an A to a B is what it is no matter what life you've had...

composition and writing lyrics however is a different thing [for many types of music]..
the act of being creative has a deeper emotional connection
even if the subject material is fantasy, often there is a relation back to something seen, experienced or heard / read about..

when playing a solo and music in general.. it's possible to feel a deep emotional connection [happy, sad, angry, fun, silly etc] with the notes you play due to the way the music makes you feel at that moment.. but this does not mean to say that you have to have had a difficult life to feel this... you're simply playing and feeling it...
everyone can feel this connection to music.. even non musicians.. music makes people want to dance and party, soldiers feel brave, people in church feel solemn, anthems are supposed to make people feel proud and connected to their nation.. fun tunes as memory aids so kids can learn the alphabet.. or raging angst so headbangers can fk it up in the pit etc.. we can all feel these things.. it's why music is so powerful and so universal.. a conveyor of emotions and identities of all types..

composition / lyricism is a different thing because you have to turn inwards..
you attach your creativity to a specific emotion and tap into it

my argument regarding the boy in the video is this...
he is not composing he's simply playing something he's learned [rather well I might add]..
he'll be perfectly able to feel a connection to the act of his performance at an emotional level..
he'll certainly feel the notes he's playing no matter if his life so far has been happy and stable or not...
when he bends his A to a B in Em in that musical setting, he'll know what it sounds and feels like..
it's simply a case of mechanically playing the right notes at the right time..
something he's learned to do by studying and trying to emulate his heroes...
anyone can do this... it's simply a case of practice [doing enough of it to develop the skills]..
having a messed up life does not mean that you are the only person able to play well..
playing well is just a case of learn well, practice hard and often, then go do it often..

however... I doubt that boy could have composed the pieces he's been playing..
that is a different skill entirely which requires and different kind of experience as a musician and in some cases, in life too..
and in some other cases it's about immersion in a specific culture..
because this is the act of creativity.. and it requires some sort of source..

creating music and playing music are not the same thing..

siraxeman · December 2017

^^you is right of course, being creative is a biggie that separates most players....since the vast majority of player simply arent creaive even AT ALL.

I remember a tv program I watched years ago featuring JoBo as a 12yr old when he was still 12 or 13yrs old and long before he "made it"....he grew up to be quite good and pretty creative. That said another kid way back was the geordie kid thomas mcrocklin dont think he ever amounted to much beyond the novelty "kid virtuoso " only time will tell...but even so if he never got much better hes still a very good player no matter what and way above most adult player with triple his experience..time will tell if its all just motor skills learned. I just hope his parents teach him well and for him not to develop a big ego...which is a very real possibility.

Teetonetal · December 2017

WezV said:

I often wonder if I would be better if I had the resources available to kids these days. Probably not, I am just not that talented.

But I do think you have to consider that kids today have easy access to a massive amount of high quality tuition. They will still need dedication and talent, not trying to take away from that. But imagine how far they can go with dedication, talent... and that massive resource?

Wanna learn something new, anything, go to YouTube and watch a few vids and you will be on your way. Most kids will have better google skills than you too

On the other hand, the market is massively over crowded. There is so much music out there now, so many awesome musicians. Getting a name is harder than ever. Look at how many people rock schools alone have churned out since the mid 90's. You are also now competing at a global level.

So yes, kids have far more resource and access available but the bar is so much higher and the competition much greater.

p90fool · December 2017

pia98jf said:

dbphoto said:

Too young to know what the blues really means?

Pretentious nonsense I would say.

SRV played his first gig aged 11 if I remember correctly.

So at 11 he knows about falling in/out love, getting your heart broken, losing your job, grief over lost loved ones, drug/drink addiction, money problems etc etc? Because that’s where authentic blues comes from.

Or are we just talking about generic blues by numbers?

Oh don't talk such crap, you don't need to be a fucking sharecropper to play a musical instrument expressively.

Listen to Jacqueline du Pre playing Elgar's Cello concerto, she makes most 'bluesmen' sound like the bunch of hack mechanics they mostly are.

Despite her privileged, indulgent childhood, she could communicate emotion through music as well as anyone in the world, from a very young age.

That kid sounds fine, just like any other adult SRV clone. His 'guitar face' is cringeworthy, but that's no different to any kid imitating adult stuff, he'll get over it.

guitarfishbay · December 2017

True art?

Such justifications seem like a thing for people who want something to mean something more due to their prejudices.

Art is entertainment. It might make you happy, sad, contemplative, or any number of other emotions... but the primary purpose is to entertain in some way. It’s supposed to make you feel something.

Real struggle, tragedy; that’s a person’s story. If that influences your enjoyment of their art then that is fine. But to require knowledge of the story and to use it as a framework for legitimising it shows a desire to judge the art for factors beyond what it is - namely by how they value its creator.

xpia98jf · December 2017

guitarfishbay said:

Art is entertainment. It might make you happy, sad, contemplative, or any number of other emotions... but the primary purpose is to entertain in some way. It’s supposed to make you feel something.

I don’t agree that art necessarily has to entertain but I do agree with you that it should move you and make you feel something. But that’s exactly my point - I’m moved deeply when I listen to Robert Johnson but not when I listen to Joe Bo or this kid. Why is that?

Teetonetal · December 2017

pia98jf said:

guitarfishbay said:

Art is entertainment. It might make you happy, sad, contemplative, or any number of other emotions... but the primary purpose is to entertain in some way. It’s supposed to make you feel something.

I don’t agree that art necessarily has to entertain but I do agree with you that it should move you and make you feel something. But that’s exactly my point - I’m moved deeply when I listen to Robert Johnson but not when I listen to Joe Bo or this kid. Why is that?

Because it's YOUR taste. That's all.

And let's just think about the absolute ridiculousness of trying to call blues musicians artists by your own definition. A huge amount of blues is recycled, be it the song, chords, lyrics, form etc... it's a folk form, very unoriginal, very copied (even by the greats) etc. Sure it's evolved, but it's a movement.based on simple ideas that almost anyone can play and get decent at.

I'm also going to say that in terms of emotion, the guitar is almost irrelevant in blues. It's all about the voice...

WezV · December 2017

Teetonetal said:

WezV said:

I often wonder if I would be better if I had the resources available to kids these days. Probably not, I am just not that talented.

But I do think you have to consider that kids today have easy access to a massive amount of high quality tuition. They will still need dedication and talent, not trying to take away from that. But imagine how far they can go with dedication, talent... and that massive resource?

Wanna learn something new, anything, go to YouTube and watch a few vids and you will be on your way. Most kids will have better google skills than you too

On the other hand, the market is massively over crowded. There is so much music out there now, so many awesome musicians. Getting a name is harder than ever. Look at how many people rock schools alone have churned out since the mid 90's. You are also now competing at a global level.

So yes, kids have far more resource and access available but the bar is so much higher and the competition much greater.

I wasn’t necessarily talking about fame, isn’t that more luck than talent? just the opportunity to learn.

Yep, the bar is higher.... it is for most creative endeavours, especially ones that share well on social media.

xpia98jf · December 2017

Teetonetal said:

pia98jf said:

guitarfishbay said:

Art is entertainment. It might make you happy, sad, contemplative, or any number of other emotions... but the primary purpose is to entertain in some way. It’s supposed to make you feel something.

I don’t agree that art necessarily has to entertain but I do agree with you that it should move you and make you feel something. But that’s exactly my point - I’m moved deeply when I listen to Robert Johnson but not when I listen to Joe Bo or this kid. Why is that?

Because it's YOUR taste. That's all.

And let's just think about the absolute ridiculousness of trying to call blues musicians artists by your own definition. A huge amount of blues is recycled, be it the song, chords, lyrics, form etc... it's a folk form, very unoriginal, very copied (even by the greats) etc. Sure it's evolved, but it's a movement.based on simple ideas that almost anyone can play and get decent at.

I'm also going to say that in terms of emotion, the guitar is almost irrelevant in blues. It's all about the voice...

It’s equally ridiculous of you to deny the status of blues or folk forms as true art. Just because a form is simple does not mean it cannot have great depth. Some of Picasso’s greatest works were his simple line drawings. Would you deny that Flamenco is a true art form?

And I don’t swallow the first point about cultural relativism either. Some art is objectively better than other art. A Beethoven sonata has more artistic value than a Taylor Swift song full stop. If you disagree you’re wrong, simple as that.

guitarfishbay · December 2017

I like Taylor Swift and Beethoven.

Beethoven isn’t touring anymore though.

Teetonetal · December 2017

WezV said:

Teetonetal said:

WezV said:

I often wonder if I would be better if I had the resources available to kids these days. Probably not, I am just not that talented.

But I do think you have to consider that kids today have easy access to a massive amount of high quality tuition. They will still need dedication and talent, not trying to take away from that. But imagine how far they can go with dedication, talent... and that massive resource?

Wanna learn something new, anything, go to YouTube and watch a few vids and you will be on your way. Most kids will have better google skills than you too

On the other hand, the market is massively over crowded. There is so much music out there now, so many awesome musicians. Getting a name is harder than ever. Look at how many people rock schools alone have churned out since the mid 90's. You are also now competing at a global level.

So yes, kids have far more resource and access available but the bar is so much higher and the competition much greater.

I wasn’t necessarily talking about fame, isn’t that more luck than talent? just the opportunity to learn.

Yep, the bar is higher.... it is for most creative endeavours, especially ones that share well on social media.

I know, and I was suggesting that whilst the opportunity to learn is greater, it becomes much harder to make a mark with your skill / talent, even as a hobby musician.

Teetonetal · December 2017

pia98jf said:

Teetonetal said:

pia98jf said:

guitarfishbay said:

Art is entertainment. It might make you happy, sad, contemplative, or any number of other emotions... but the primary purpose is to entertain in some way. It’s supposed to make you feel something.

I don’t agree that art necessarily has to entertain but I do agree with you that it should move you and make you feel something. But that’s exactly my point - I’m moved deeply when I listen to Robert Johnson but not when I listen to Joe Bo or this kid. Why is that?

Because it's YOUR taste. That's all.

And let's just think about the absolute ridiculousness of trying to call blues musicians artists by your own definition. A huge amount of blues is recycled, be it the song, chords, lyrics, form etc... it's a folk form, very unoriginal, very copied (even by the greats) etc. Sure it's evolved, but it's a movement.based on simple ideas that almost anyone can play and get decent at.

I'm also going to say that in terms of emotion, the guitar is almost irrelevant in blues. It's all about the voice...

It’s equally ridiculous of you to deny the status of blues or folk forms as true art. Just because a form is simple does not mean it cannot have great depth. Some of Picasso’s greatest works were his simple line drawings. Would you deny that Flamenco is a true art form?

And I don’t swallow the first point about cultural relativism either. Some art is objectively better than other art. A Beethoven sonata has more artistic value than a Taylor Swift song full stop. If you disagree you’re wrong, simple as that.

No you are not. Art is 100% subjective. There is no better or worse, only popular or not.
.
And I was holding Blues up to your own yardstick. Blues is essentially an art form that copies itself. The greats, like the 3 Kings stamped thier own style within an extremely limited frame of reference. To use your art analogy, blues is nothing more than painting by numbers, it's just that some people are so good, thier own style comes out. It's how you compared JoBo to Johnson - a mimic to an artist. But look at that genre, cover after cover after cover. It's a folk form, that's how it works. So based on your own argument, where is the true artistry in that?

I don't like Bethoven or Mozart at all. On the other hand I don't mind Taylor Swift and I adore Vivvaldi and Puccini.
Greatness in any art form, is only in the eye of the beholder.

xpia98jf · December 2017

Teetonetal said:
No you are not. Art is 100% subjective. There is no better or worse, only popular or not.

Well I don’t think you could be more wrong about that but that’s just something we’re going to have to agree to disagree on. Like I said before it can’t be explained to those who don’t get it.

BRISTOL86 · December 2017

pia98jf said:

guitarfishbay said:

Art is entertainment. It might make you happy, sad, contemplative, or any number of other emotions... but the primary purpose is to entertain in some way. It’s supposed to make you feel something.

I don’t agree that art necessarily has to entertain but I do agree with you that it should move you and make you feel something. But that’s exactly my point - I’m moved deeply when I listen to Robert Johnson but not when I listen to Joe Bo or this kid. Why is that?

Could it be that your pre conceived notion on what the kid does or does not ‘feel’ when he plays is preventing you from enjoying it?

For example would you have reacted the same if you had only heard the playing and not seen it (with no talk or indication as to the player’s age?)

I think we all, knowingly or otherwise, are influenced by the person creating the music and not just the music.

Teetonetal · December 2017

pia98jf said:

Teetonetal said:
No you are not. Art is 100% subjective. There is no better or worse, only popular or not.

Well I don’t think you could be more wrong about that but that’s just something we’re going to have to agree to disagree on. Like I said before it can’t be explained to those who don’t get it.

Fine, but I'd love to see what your criteria are for judging one persons music vs another...

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Young player having fun

Comments