Melodic dictation

[fingerpikingood]

Originally Posted by Crossroads

No, no worries about believing you or thinking your full of it lol ... but you are writing as if you think people who decide to understand music theory and who decide to perfect formal playing techniques (& perhaps informal ones too), are somehow barred from being just as "innately" artistic and creative as those who don't bother with the formal studies.

Why do you think the two things are mutually exclusive?

It might be the case that too much concentration only on formal theory and strict formal playing techniques, would divert your thinking from the more artistic goals of music ... and that might be counterproductive in terms of artistry (though that's very subjective anyway). But even in an extreme & hypothetical case like that, I can't imagine such a person could go through life dedicated to practicing and playing music, and yet never listening to and enjoying the sound of their favourite songs ... that person would still be completely aware of why they liked the sound of music in artistic terms.

So I don't see any reason why those who choose to study music formally, should be somehow innately less creative or artistic. Perhaps even the opposite ...

... perhaps aspiring musicians who are especially creative/artistic, may often decide to learn as much as they can about the theory which helps to describe how music works, and to practice & perfect as best they can the playing techniques which enable them to be as expressive as possible in producing each note ... perhaps many creative musicians will choose that formal route precisely because they believe those skills will open new opportunities to express their art.

I don't think ideas of being a creative artist are incompatible with seriously studying the subject and practicing in a dedicated way to perfect it's practical skills.

Ian.

I never said they were mutually exclusive. jonR said if one begans ahead of you, you will not surpass them. i'm just saying that is false.

i'm not saying that people shouldn't learn theory. in fact i have many times said the contrary in other threads, but i don't believe i referred to that at all in this one.

i'm not sure why you said that.

[fingerpikingood]

Originally Posted by JonR

I agree with all this, but you're making too hard a distinction between the learning and the creativity.

I do instinctively agree it takes a certain kind of person to want to be creative, to believe they can be. Many people who take up music just want to play other people's music. Eg, the archetypal orchestral player may reach a tremendously high technical standard, but never produce anything of their own - and be quite happy with that.
Others will be wanting to make their own music when they can hardly play an instrument.

At the same time, creativity can be fostered. People who believe they are not creative can be shown that they are, or can be. There is still a myth that most people are "not musical", and many people (even beginner musicians) believe it.

But even people who have a creative urge to begin with have to learn how to express that, by copying others - and yes by reading books sometimes.

it depends on what you call musical. i for one would agree with that. because i know what my definition of musical is, and i promise you, you compare me to most people, practice or not, even the first time i ever touched an instrument, and even when i touch any object for which i can control its sound, then i can see am different than most. and i am different in musical ways.

most people can learn to make music though. a computer can make music, but it is not musical.

ya, sure all kinds of people play all kinds of music, some write, some perform, some improvise, some do all of the above. i'm not disputing that. but you said, if one starts earlier they cannot be surpassed. and this is false. they can be.

some are more musical than others. and some are more musical than most in a special way.

this is true. you can not believe if you want. but it is true. again, that is not to say that most cannot learn to play music. there has been much headway in teaching techniques of music. but some need to do stuff like learning to count, whereas others simply do not.

there are differences. most are not musical, but most can learn to play music, to play an instrument. although for most it is much harder than for those born with more musical genes, and in this case it is much more suitable to start off very young because the initial hurdle of learning to count and all that is very large.

for others, they could never have been taught a single thing about music, but still, they would have learned to play the counter top instrument. or any single object that makes sound one can control.

i play a mean countertop, and a mean beatbox, and these are instruments every single one of us have owned since birth.

the music came before the theory. some people can just play music without learning anything.

I know myself, you won't be able to convince me that i don't exist. you don't know me, it is normal that you don't know i exist.

but i'm not downplaying theory, it was written and invented for good reason. it is useful. it is good to learn and good to study and good to devise, it will make any musician better, not matter how much or how little talent they have, this is true. it is not for nothing. but still people are different and people learn at different rates, and music is not some kind of linear thing that you can start at the beginning work your way chronologically through a set of workbooks and come out the end a great musician.

there are so many different avenues, and creativity and message, and stuff like that come into play. you can't analyze music and say if one piece is better than another. there is no way to scientifically measure art this way. you can't say one musician is better than another, you can say one plays faster, or you prefer the songs one writes over another, or stuff like that, but it is not linear, it is not measurable. so even your original statement of not being able to surpass another cannot make sense because one cannot measure ones self against another.

but one can start off playing slower, knowing less theory, or anything you could measure subjectively or just your objective perception, and progress more quickly and surpass the other.

all humans are not the same. what bubble were you living in where everybody got the same grades in school and studied the same amount of time for the same grades. you never knew anybody who never studied and still got great grades? you don't find some of your students absorb stuff faster than others? do you even have any students? i would have thought this would be incredibly obvious to you. or maybe you justified it in some way like one student must be getting help at home, or another is younger, or started younger, or listens to more music, or studies more when they get home. you're like a religious person that twists around all the facts so that their original premise that god exists can be true. whereas the truth is much more simple than that. it's so simple, and you have created this elaborate web of justifications to avoid it. have you not? or do you in fact notice how some people are naturally quicker at picking stuff up than others?

i've noticed, because i'm that guy.

[Crossroads]

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

I never said they were mutually exclusive. jonR said if one begans ahead of you, you will not surpass them. i'm just saying that is false.
i'm not saying that people shouldn't learn theory. in fact i have many times said the contrary in other threads, but i don't believe i referred to that at all in this one.
i'm not sure why you said that.

Well what you quote from me in you post above was a reply to your previous post where you say the following (which was included in full text of my post that you quoted) -

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

you can learn grammar and spelling and even learn a little about what makes stories good or read lots of good stories, but this won't make you a great writer.
creativity, what you want to say, the art part about it, is not found in a book.
it is not just some recipe you could follow. music theory can be found in any music theory book. it has a limit. one can learn it all. but having learned it all won't make you the best songrwiter, nor the best improviser.
there is creativity in there, there is the touch of the artist. you can surpass another. it is not just something linear where you just learn all there is to know and he who learns the most is best.
it is not math. even math you could learn it all but that won't make you good creatively with math. you won't necessarily find new definitions.
creativity is something intagible, no theory will make the decisions for you. no theory will tell you what to play. it cannot this is what a computer would do. you can program a computer with all music theory, a computer can play any tempo perfectly, any articulation perfectly. anything you program into it it can perform. all knowledge of theory it can replicate. you can put it all in there.
but a computer cannot currently perform as an artist can. not yet. perhaps someday, but when that day comes you will be able to have a conversation with it and not realize it is a computer, it will have artificial intelligence, and it will be self aware.
probably you won't believe me when i say that and think i'm full of it, but it would be extremely long to explain my position for that.

You ask why I said that? Well it's because of what you said previously in the above quote, and in particular the parts I've highlighted in red (which is actually most of it lol).

Most of your post there reads like you are saying that learning music theory has no influence on how artistic your compositions may become (and I was also including technique, which also has to be formally learnt ... you don't just automatically play with formally correct technique).

Perhaps you meant to say that being proficient in theory and having good formally correct technique won't automatically make you a great songwriter or a great improviser. I'd agree with that ...but with the proviso that I think it will certainly help ... it opens up many more options for you, like having a broader palate to choose from.

What I don't agree with, is if you are saying that artistic creativity in music is not helped by becoming knowledgeable about music theory (& hence it's application in playing & composing), nor helped by developing skill with correct playing techniques (which allows you to play and compose phrases that might otherwise be impossible for you ever to discover).

Ian.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

it depends on what you call musical. i for one would agree with that. because i know what my definition of musical is, and i promise you, you compare me to most people, practice or not, even the first time i ever touched an instrument, and even when i touch any object for which i can control its sound, then i can see am different than most. and i am different in musical ways.

I suppose we have to take your word for that...

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

ya, sure all kinds of people play all kinds of music, some write, some perform, some improvise, some do all of the above. i'm not disputing that. but you said, if one starts earlier they cannot be surpassed. and this is false.

To repeat: I did NOT say that. Show me where I used the word "cannot", or implied that it was impossibe.

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

some are more musical than others. and some are more musical than most in a special way.

Well, this is debatable - or at least needs examining. Obviously, a tiny minority of people become great musicians. They seem to be very different from the rest of us. But it's a mistake to judge from appearances. That leads to the common mystification that a tiny minority are "born talented". There is no evidence for this.

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

there are differences. most are not musical, but most can learn to play music, to play an instrument. although for most it is much harder than for those born with more musical genes, and in this case it is much more suitable to start off very young because the initial hurdle of learning to count and all that is very large.

AFAIK, there is no evidence (so far) for anyone being "born with musical genes".
The research is inconclusive. There is far more evidence for the role of musical education at an early age, and for the hypothesis that we are all "born musical". Many of the differences that become clear in later life can be traced to early influence (or lack of).

(We've been through this dispute before...)

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

I know myself, you won't be able to convince me that i don't exist. you don't know me, it is normal that you don't know i exist.

Oh I'm pretty sure you exist all right.

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

you never knew anybody who never studied and still got great grades?

No.

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

you don't find some of your students absorb stuff faster than others?

Yes. I just draw different conclusions from yours.

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

i would have thought this would be incredibly obvious to you. or maybe you justified it in some way like one student must be getting help at home, or another is younger, or started younger, or listens to more music, or studies more when they get home.

Exactly. Could be any of these. In fact, it's easy to determine that at least one of these things is in fact the case, with all my "better" students.

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

you're like a religious person that twists around all the facts so that their original premise that god exists can be true. whereas the truth is much more simple than that. it's so simple, and you have created this elaborate web of justifications to avoid it. have you not? or do you in fact notice how some people are naturally quicker at picking stuff up than others?

I think if anyone can be accused of religious attitudes, it's you. You're the one with mystical beliefs. I'm interested in scientific evidence. That's quite different from common sense observation, which is often mistaken.

[bluesking]

Don't any of you people ever practice?

Fingerpicking, if you are not careful, your muscle memory will set half-way through a post and the next time you pick up a guitar you will only be able to perform the ingrained motions of typing egotistical crap.

I await the next installment of needless controversy with eager glee...

[Crossroads]

Originally Posted by bluesking

Don't any of you people ever practice?
Fingerpicking, if you are not careful, your muscle memory will set half-way through a post and the next time you pick up a guitar you will only be able to perform the ingrained motions of typing egotistical crap.
I await the next installment of needless controversy with eager glee...

Well tbh I thought it was slow day (slow week, year ... ) as far as new posts are concerned.

But I still managed 5 hours practice so far today (and I usually manage another 2 hours late night acoustic) ... yeah I know, I should be bloody fantastic by now ... ahh, if only I had fingerpicking's innate brilliance!

Ian.

[bluesking]

Originally Posted by Crossroads

Well tbh I thought it was slow day (slow week, year ... ) as far as new posts are concerned.

But I still managed 5 hours practice so far today (and I usually manage another 2 hours late night acoustic) ... yeah I know, I should be bloody fantastic by now ... ahh, if only I had fingerpicking's innate brilliance!

Ian.

Late-night & acoustic are two incompatible words for me unfortunately. 5 hours on a weekday is a dream too, what with work....I'm really quite jealous. I have about 3 hours available tonight but headache may mean I slack a bit. Arps away!

[JonR]

5 hours?? 3 hours??
I picked up my guitar once today, and that was only to check the riffs on "Burn the Witch" by Queens of the Stone Age...
What else was I doing?

Er... well, visiting websites like this looking for the latest pointless thread to contribute a pointless post to, for one thing...
Then there's TV to watch, gardening.... man it's a tough life...
(phew that's enough for today)

Well, I am 60, so working towards becoming a rock star doesn't seem too urgent these days...

[Crossroads]

Originally Posted by JonR

5 hours?? 3 hours??
I picked up my guitar once today, and that was only to check the riffs on "Burn the Witch" by Queens of the Stone Age...
What else was I doing?
Er... well, visiting websites like this looking for the latest pointless thread to contribute a pointless post to, for one thing...
Then there's TV to watch, gardening.... man it's a tough life...
(phew that's enough for today)
Well, I am 60, so working towards becoming a rock star doesn't seem too urgent these days...

Yes, I know 5 + 2 hours sounds like a ridiculous amount of time. But I typically practice 3 hours in the morning (10 till 1), and then 2 hours in the afternoon (3:30 to 5:30), and then a couple of hours late at night with the guitar unplugged (less practice at weekends, to give the neighbours a rest!).

I've never been interested in becoming a rock star either, not even when I first picked up a guitar as a 13 year old. But the main reason I practice so much now, is because I have few young students and I try to work on stuff for them, to perfect that as best I can ...

... you probably don't need to do more than a fraction of the practice I do, because I think you kept playing and practicing all through your adult life? Whereas as I more or less gave up at age about 22 (without ever really learning much at all) ... and then I picked up the guitar again with a "driven mission" about 10 years ago ... so that was about 25 years in which I did no more that strum a few chords and muddle through a few solo lines for 10 min. a week (if that) ... so now I'm trying to make up for 25 years lost time.

Ian.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Crossroads

Yes, I know 5 + 2 hours sounds like a ridiculous amount of time. But I typically practice 3 hours in the morning (10 till 1), and then 2 hours in the afternoon (3:30 to 5:30), and then a couple of hours late at night with the guitar unplugged (less practice at weekends, to give the neighbours a rest!).

I've never been interested in becoming a rock star either, not even when I first picked up a guitar as a 13 year old. But the main reason I practice so much now, is because I have few young students and I try to work on stuff for them, to perfect that as best I can ...

... you probably don't need to do more than a fraction of the practice I do, because I think you kept playing and practicing all through your adult life? Whereas as I more or less gave up at age about 22 (without ever really learning much at all) ... and then I picked up the guitar again with a "driven mission" about 10 years ago ... so that was about 25 years in which I did no more that strum a few chords and muddle through a few solo lines for 10 min. a week (if that) ... so now I'm trying to make up for 25 years lost time.

Ian.

Right. Yes, I've been constantly noodling, in a totally unfocussed way, since I was 16. Never gave it up - although it always had to come second to jobs, girlfriends, etc.. So I'm not sure I ever practised for as much as 3 hours a day - certainly not regularly - even when I was an obsessed teenager. I do know I never had a "regime", and never worked on "drills". I did it when I felt like it, other demands permitting. I would sweat over a particular fingerstyle piece (ragtime, blues, folk or classical) till I had it; but I wouldn't practice scales or arpeggios or stuff like that.
However, there were always occasional days when I would have had a guitar in my hands for more hours than that - eg days when I had a couple of gigs, or days when we were recording. Of course, that isn't "practising", it's "playing" - but it all counts, naturally.
Now, there are fewer gigs, but still two days (during term time) when I am teaching for a total of 5 1/2 hours each day (2 or 3 separate sessions). Again, it isn't "practice", and I'm not actually playing for most of that time. But most of it would still count, IMO: the guitar is in my hands, and of course I am focussed on musical listening and demonstration.

Outside of that "work", I tend to feel (mistakenly or not) that I've "done enough" practising, I don't need to do any more. Ever. That's because I can "get away with" my technique as it is, in any situation I come across. I'm not getting up at challenging jazz jam sessions, which would probably expose me. I've reached a plateau of ability (some years ago), but it doesn't feel like stagnation; it feels comfortable.
I do occasionally still noodle for enjoyment, maybe a few minutes every few days, or more if I'm trying to compose something.

My greatest sin (it's an addiction, doctor) is choosing to visit sites like this, often for 2 or 3 hours in one day, instead of creative music making. I mean, right now, my guitar is sitting there by my side, gathering dust....

[bluesking]

I've approached practice in much the same way as you Jon for the longest time. I started at age 13 and am now 27. Only in the last 2 years (since I started visiting this site really) have I structured my practice. Of course the practice is varied and consists of anything between songwritting exercises to metronome drills. I usually try to average 2-3 hours a day.

Its nothing to do with being a rock-star for me. I have a career and a girlfriend living in sin. I am happy with my life. I just want to be the best player I can be. I still play live regularly and rehearse with my main band weekly. Many of my close friends have been in bands with me at some time, so when we meet up we tend to jam at least some of the time.

Music is "only" a hobby but its also the most important thing in the world....

[JonR]

Originally Posted by bluesking

I've approached practice in much the same way as you Jon for the longest time. I started at age 13 and am now 27. Only in the last 2 years (since I started visiting this site really) have I structured my practice. Of course the practice is varied and consists of anything between songwritting exercises to metronome drills. I usually try to average 2-3 hours a day.

Its nothing to do with being a rock-star for me. I have a career and a girlfriend living in sin. I am happy with my life. I just want to be the best player I can be. I still play live regularly and rehearse with my main band weekly. Many of my close friends have been in bands with me at some time, so when we meet up we tend to jam at least some of the time.

Music is "only" a hobby but its also the most important thing in the world....

Right. I think the band friends and the jamming makes a lot of difference. My bands have mostly stagnated a little recently, and none of the guys are interested in between-gig jamming (even rehearsing!).
Music is - IMO - ideally a social activity: not only between artist and audience, but between musicians. That's when it really "lives", when it really means something.
When I was younger [sigh...] we would have regular weekly band practices, regardless of whether we had gigs or not. It wasn't just to improve our playing, or learn new songs, it was a social meeting of friends (even tho we'd often argue about songs or chords...).
With my main current bands, we've been together so long we have a huge list of songs we all know by heart - no need to rehearse anything (and it keeps the gigs fresh that way). But also, each member has their own social/family life separate from the rest (not to mention day jobs) - and we don't live very close to one another anyway. That just seems to be the way it goes. (Fight it, man!)

[bluesking]

Originally Posted by JonR

That just seems to be the way it goes. (Fight it, man!)

Sounds like some good advice. I've heard recordings of your playing and read many of your educated posts. Perhaps you are wasted on "us" and could follow your own advice? I say this with mixed feelings because you are clearly one of this board's major assets and to lose even a single post of yours is a shame.

[fingerpikingood]

Originally Posted by Crossroads

Well what you quote from me in you post above was a reply to your previous post where you say the following (which was included in full text of my post that you quoted) -



You ask why I said that? Well it's because of what you said previously in the above quote, and in particular the parts I've highlighted in red (which is actually most of it lol).

Most of your post there reads like you are saying that learning music theory has no influence on how artistic your compositions may become (and I was also including technique, which also has to be formally learnt ... you don't just automatically play with formally correct technique).

Perhaps you meant to say that being proficient in theory and having good formally correct technique won't automatically make you a great songwriter or a great improviser. I'd agree with that ...but with the proviso that I think it will certainly help ... it opens up many more options for you, like having a broader palate to choose from.

What I don't agree with, is if you are saying that artistic creativity in music is not helped by becoming knowledgeable about music theory (& hence it's application in playing & composing), nor helped by developing skill with correct playing techniques (which allows you to play and compose phrases that might otherwise be impossible for you ever to discover).

Ian.

yes, the bolded part is basically what i meant. it is a thin line, but on your following paragraph, i do mean that creativity won't be helped by using theory, but only in a certain sense. i mean music is not a guitar, it is the person playing it that is the musical part. the ideas and the creativity of the musician will and won't be aided by theory. the person has genes and ideas and music theory will help them convert those ideas into sounds via an instrument. but, at the same time, learning theory and the names of new sounds and looking at how others used them and stuff like that will certainly increase one's vocabulary and change what a given person's creativity will produce. but still, if a guitar had only one string, and if there were only 3 tones, one would be more creative than another even though the theory behind the music for such an instrument would be tiny and quickly learned by any person.

i stand by what i said still, but i didn't mean to say that theory is useless, but just like you said in the bolded part, theory won't create great music, theory is not the ideas themselves, only a tool to help turn your ideas into music, and also it will help to learn of new options you could use your creativity to produce. but options is not great music. it's which options you choose when that makes the music and this is the creativity part, and this is not found in a book. that's what i meant. i didn't mean that theory does not improve musicianship, in fact it is the opposite, theory does help greatly, but it is not the whole, it is not the ideas and it is not the music itself, or the art itself, it is how one applies it that is the creativity. and certainly, even in how it is applied one can go a long way and mix and match solos and stuff, but it is still not the creativity, it is not the clever phrasing, not the emotion. the art part is separate. not found in a book. this is why ya, computers, software like band in a box, can freestyle, they can 'make music' but it is not artistic, it is not creative really, not in the artistic way, it will not be clever, it will not be phrased in such a way to take you on a journey, it just will be, in some kind of theory way. this is the difference. a computer knows only theory, the difference between that, and a real great musician, is creativity and art. that's how i see it at any rate.

[fingerpikingood]

Originally Posted by JonR

I suppose we have to take your word for that...

ya, you do, but those that know me need not.

To repeat: I did NOT say that. Show me where I used the word "cannot", or implied that it was impossibe.

touche, you said probably. this might be more accurate, but at the same time, i think with musicians, there is the learning part, and then the performing part of a career, and although learning always continues, for many they kind of plateau, and so i think for a lot of career musicians of the types in schools, like orchestras and stuff, alot become pretty even. in the artistic part, songwriting or improvising, i think either is fair game, and considering creativity and ideas, and stuff like that, i don't think there is an advantage for those starting earlier. perhaps dexterity wise, but creatively i don't think starting earlier is advantageous. but starting way too late will cause problems because your bones will be hard and will have difficulty learning new positions you want to move them in.

Well, this is debatable - or at least needs examining. Obviously, a tiny minority of people become great musicians. They seem to be very different from the rest of us. But it's a mistake to judge from appearances. That leads to the common mystification that a tiny minority are "born talented". There is no evidence for this.

debatable for you, obvious to me. and if you knew me well for a long period of time, obvious for you.

AFAIK, there is no evidence (so far) for anyone being "born with musical genes".

there won't be until the human genome is fully understood, but there will be. there is evidence all over the place. just not clearly scientific calculated evidence. but logic can deduce it with the little evidence we have

The research is inconclusive. There is far more evidence for the role of musical education at an early age, and for the hypothesis that we are all "born musical". Many of the differences that become clear in later life can be traced to early influence (or lack of).

the great minds don't study psychology. don't trust the studies psychologists do. show me the studies you refer to and i'll show you their shortcomings. i am certain they are there.

(We've been through this dispute before...)

Oh I'm pretty sure you exist all right.

you know something exists, and that thing is text on your computer. you are certain of nothing more than that. you don't know me, or exactly what i am. you know something exists. you don't know 'I' exist the definition of 'I' as i do. you don't know what i am. i do, i know myself. and if you did as well, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No.

surprise surprise, i could have told you that, because if you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes. I just draw different conclusions from yours.

you justify differently. your conclusions are not based on sound reasoning, you begin with the conclusion, and you go with that. you think one studies more than another, or better, or harder, or i don't know what your conclusions are, but they could be fabricated and completely unreal. greatly talented individuals are rare though so maybe you have not seen many differences between your students also, but still, i have seen students where clearly some have a sense of rhythm and some do not. but there are more factors. this is why it is rare. you could have great rhythm and be tone deaf. or not be tone deaf and have good rhythm, and be below average intelligence. or have a good ear, great rhythm and great intelligence.

you don't have students that don't count and some that do? you've never had a student that started with you and skipped the whole counting portion? these students have good rhythm.

Exactly. Could be any of these. In fact, it's easy to determine that at least one of these things is in fact the case, with all my "better" students.

it is easy to find the wrong answers. you have found these answers with me, have you? of you think i suck? you haven't heard me play that much at all. nor heard any songs i've written. but you beat me in every single one of all these categories. you think people like me don't exist. and that's retarded, because i am right here. you're telling me i don't exist. but i do exist. i did get good grades without studying. my hands couldn't play guitar the first day i picked one up. but my mind could. you know what i mean? it improved over time. that is no doubt. but still. i'm the type that does something the first time and people don't believe me it's the first time for me.

I think if anyone can be accused of religious attitudes, it's you. You're the one with mystical beliefs. I'm interested in scientific evidence. That's quite different from common sense observation, which is often mistaken.

logic is sound. relativity was not scientifically tested until much after einstein discovered it. mathematics are pure logic, nothing more. they cannot be wrong. logic, true logic, applied correctly is infallible. it is always correct. in fact the scientific method is merely a type of logic. it is logic that uses measurement. physically measured things. but experiments exist all over the world. isolation of variables is everywhere in all situations of everyday life. you just need to be looking properly. i told you. it would be long to explain. we'd be here for pages. but that you don't know what i know does not make it false. i can't show you a diagram with the portion of the brain responsible for music. you might live long enough to discover i'm right though.