Okay Nabbie, I listened to the Robert Johnson recording and to some of Curtis's 
recordings on YouTube.
 

 This is regarding you one note theory of music here. Granted some instruments 
tone productions can be a thing that must be practised, sounding a note on a 
violin is rather complex. But many instruments such as the piano, just about 
anyone can strike a note and it sounds the same. It is the relationships 
between the notes that make music not just one note. Beauty in a single note is 
in the eye of a beholder. Take the saxophone. This was originally intended to 
be a classical instrument, but for the most part it ended up in jazz, brass 
bands, on the popular side of the tracks. Classical saxophone playing is 
generally very smooth and mellow. While jazz players are often rather raspy in 
tone. You have to consider the style of music being played. If you consider 
'beauty of tone' as a criterion, most jazz saxophonists sound like crap next to 
a good classical player. But the classical player probably could never 
replicate the style of the jazz players. 
 

 YouTube is not the best way to hear music. It is compressed and often recopied 
and recompressed many times. Consumer video recorders have microphones that 
have distorted frequency response, often boosting the highs, and they are 
recorded at the camera location, not with optimum placement. 
 The Robert Johnson recording is a solo, and 1936 recording technology loses 
both deep bass and much of the high frequencies (and an abrasive was added to 
the shellac of 78rpm records to keep the needle from wearing them down too 
quickly). His sound on the reproduction on YouTube is dead because it has been 
processed to remove the noise of that technology.  So when you compare the 
musical sound of different musicians, you have to account for how the recording 
technology, and the recording engineer affect the final sound.
 

 Studio recordings tend to be different than live recordings. The atmosphere is 
more relaxed in a studio recording, and the need to project to an audience is 
absent so the sound might be more intimate. A completely acoustic performance 
without amplification requires projecting to the audience, and such a 
performance might sound a bit more intense than one in a more intimate setting.
 

 Comparing solo guitar and voice with what Curtis does with additional 
instruments is not a telling comparison. The ability to play slowly is nice, 
but a pro has to be able to handle rapid passages with ease, and without making 
serious errors. Now I can play slowly, because I am not that skilled, and have 
no other choice, lacking technical fluency. Five-year-old children can play the 
piano far better than I ever will. I am pretty good with single notes too. I 
can play them loud, soft, and in between. 
 

 There are kinds of music I like, music I like less, and music I do not like, 
but I do not consider those performing music I do not like as crude etc., 
because I have not really investigated their artistry and style; some of these 
musicians seem to be fantastic in their technical ability. I mostly listen to 
Western European music, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and so forth, so 
I have a musical bias, I almost never listen to pop, jazz, musicals, rock, or 
blues. Learning something about the style of a particular kind of musics helps 
to appreciate more, even if in the end, you do not like it. For example, I do 
not like rap, but it takes a tremendous amount of rhythmic and verbal and 
literary skill to produce it.
 

 I read somewhere on FFL you were a photographer. Are you an artist or a hack 
(just taking soulless pictures for money)? I do not believe you have ever given 
us a sample of your work. I am sure there are critics in the audience who would 
be glad to evaluate your artistic ability. What do you consider to be art in 
the field of photography? If we are discussing art versus non art, there must 
be some general criterion or criteria by which to evaluate it.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 "If Curtis were as bad as you say, what do you think he should do to improve?"
 

 Good question. First of all I'd recommend practise, practise, practise. He 
could start by hitting one note at a time, just one note and listening to it, 
how it sounds, vibrates and how the sound slowly disappears. Just that, very 
simply and innoscently create one sound, and then listen to it, how pleasing is 
that sound, does it sound better doing it in another way ?  And again, and 
again, and again. By doing this one acquires an understanding of the basics and 
a love for the note itself. Without this basics one is lost and will never 
achieve anything. One should understand that the ability to play fast on any 
instrument is not the same as playing music. To be able to play slowly is the 
hallmark of a professional.
  Many amateurs, like Curtis, make this mistake; they skip the basics and try 
to convey too much.
 I recommend you to listen to the video I posted by Robert Johnson. Where is 
the showmanship in this ? There isn't any because his heart is in it. When you 
listen to this, perhaps you better understand my disgust when fellows like 
Curtis comes along claiming to play the blues.
 

 Robert Johnson - Kind Hearted Woman Blues (1936) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A

 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A
 
 Robert Johnson - Kind Hearted Woman Blues (1936) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A This Song contains the only guitar 
solo Robert Johnson ever recorded. I very good example for his amazing talent. 
He plays rhythm and lead guitar on one inst...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  





Reply via email to