Inner teacher

[rdubb]

So how many people out there are actively cultivating this?

I dunno, i've studied with a number of really great guitarists, and masterclassed it up with a number of others, but it seems like all the breakthoughs i've made in my playing have come from 'going inside', listening to myself as much as possible, and applying body-hand-positional relaxation techniqes from things like yoga.

that's the achingly beautiful and enriching thing about our art, how its a process of discovery. I had to learn how to not beat myself up first, though, to really 'get this'.

i guess since this a techincal forum, an example of this is how i LOVE to take a scalar fragment, like just root to fith of a major scale, or root to fifth of a chromatic scale, and explore and go inside all the sensations that are involved in playing that. Examining closely the way the fingers seem to 'exchange weight', feeling my hands and body relax as i simultaneously depress the string. playing slowly and listening to acheive perfect legato.

i love this stuff so much that it becomes a way to avoid having to solve rep problems :) its just so zen and relaxing.

[Libre]

Funny you should mention Zen. I'm reading a book (Godel, Escher, Bach) that among myriad other topics, discusses Zen, in some length. A totally mind-blowing book, by the way - but this Zen part really has me reflecting on some of the "concepts" (wrong word for Zen, but I need to use the word right now).
Anyway, I have this museum gig - and I played there today. Something was a bit off, I didn't have my mojo working, the crowd was pretty apathetic, and I was off my center. My sound wasn't great, and my accuracy was a bit off. Not the case last weekend - it was totally groovy then, but not today. And the crowd can tell - or maybe, it's a circuit. The better the crowd is reacting, the better I play, and the better they react, and the better I play, and so on.

In addition to classical guitar playing, I have also juggled, played chess, darts, and golf, and done bike riding at fairly high levels of competence. I can also recognize the difference in those activities, between mojo working and mojo not working. Or, off center and dead nuts on center. It's like, say in chess, when I'm dead nuts on center, I can see every piece on the board, and understand the position at a glance. Mojo not working, there are enemy pieces I didn't even see coming at me from all over the place. In golf, when I'm off, I miss shots that when I am ON, I can make with my eyes closed. When I used to juggle, when it was mojo on, I knew the exact position of every object (up to 4 - I never mastered 5) and there were oceans of room between them. Mojo off, there were all these things flying around my head like a swarm of bees.

What I am getting it, is that all these activities are really one and the same.
That's Zen.
It's very hard to explain, but let's just say that when I'm DEAD NUTS ON, it feels the same whether I'm throwing darts, juggling clubs, riding a bike, or playing Recuerdos de la Alhambra. And when I'm OFF - well, it feels pretty much the same as well. I can't hit a specific spot on the dart board, and I can't play a tremolo smooth and fast. I wish I knew how to turn it on - I don't.

As far as the inner teacher - well, I could not agree more. My "quantum leaps" up the learning curve have had, pretty much, nothing to do with anyone, other than that teacher in my head. Of course, my real teachers may have guided me to reach that point. But I'm mostly self-taught anyway. It is all from the inside. It's a feeling of mastery - nothing to do with the hands. It's Zen.

[rdubb]

Funny thing, I actually took a class in undergrad devoted solety to Godel Esher Bach (an Ai class in the philosophy dept). I even got to see Douglas Hofstader speak there (UC Santa Cruz), then again in grad school (Yale School of Music).

Marvelous book. Minds I is also quite a read. Recently i've been more into vedantic philosophy, Krishnamurti, random channeled stuff like the Seth Teachings, and whatnot.

I checked out your website, and its nice to see someone agreeing with me that there's Bach, then everyone else :)

[Libre]

I am so excited about this book! I speak to my wife about it incessently - and today I told her that a college course - even an entire degree program - could be devoted to this book. Now you mention you took that course.
I would rather hear Douglas Hofstadter speak than hear John Williams play the guitar, at this point. I consider Hofstadter a major league genius. Williams is a guitar playing genius, but that is bush league compared with how revolutionary GEB is.
If I had to pick a single book to give to an alien civilization, to demonstrate how far human thinking has evolved, I would pick GEB in a heartbeat, and never worry I may have made a bad choice.
Oh yeah, if it was music they wanted, anything by Bach - but right now, I'm partial to the Violin Sonatas and Partitas. And it's a strange coincidence, but Hofstadter refers to the S&P's quite often. And it's great to know the exact piece he is referring to - and if I want to hear it at the moment, it's ALL in my iPod! And in my head as well.
Thanks for checking out my site by the way.

[Jubilee Valence]

Hey Marc!..........Yep! "Zen is for Men"--we say around here; myself-strict adherent to the "bushido"-rarely comes up.....but occasionally necessary; Faya-another member here(absent due to a big move into his new home & studio etc!) & Brian R-fellow member,-also both reap the benefits of the inner teacher as well as some of the finest "outer" teachers who are/were (in each case) themselves "masters"-verily!...it's always interesting to discuss our similarities (& even differences!) but the "inner" musician doth prevail; you'll especially enjoy the scientific analogies that come up when discussing the "zone"--it's amazing how many here truly have the inner mastery but yet don't understand it's complexities--I probably never will (to the infinite depths)--but being self taught in just about all things gives me the edge in situational ethics at times;per the "code"; but the opposite also can occur per base humanity typically in check with the principle of balance; ah, So!.....Jubi-gram....(rdubb-you'll find that if you read 'em out loud --the meaning will come clear--"zen" thing-LOLOLOL!) Hasta!-Jubi :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[rdubb]

with all due respect Mr Valence I'm not sure what you're talking about here:

"but being self taught in just about all things gives me the edge in situational ethics at times;per the "code"; but the opposite also can occur per base humanity typically in check with the principle of balance; ah, So!.....Jubi-gram....(rdubb-you'll find that if you read 'em out loud --the meaning will come clear--"zen" thing-LOLOLOL!) Hasta!-Jubi"


Concerning Hofstadter's talks. They were interesting; he 'spoke' in limerick style much like he does in the book, in a speculative fashion. 'twas very entertaining, but at times not particularly informative. But then again, GEB is all about making you think and ponder, definitey not a 'just the facts m'am' kind of book, and as a speaker he stuck to that.

the overall flow was somewhat of a 'tangled heirarchy' :) LOL

Concerning the inner teacher, there are some great essays on this on the www.guitarprinciples.com site. I like the way that guy approaches things. I even ordered his book "The Principles of Correct Practice.", which i would say overall is a valuable addition to our pedagogy.

[Jubilee Valence]

....simply tangently applied esoteric philosophy; relevance unimportant to the real topic of inner teaching and apparently contraindicative to the pursuits heretfore mentioned regarding "outer" teaching; enjoy! Hasta--Jubi(Mr.Valence it seems to a selective few...)

[Libre]

rdubb-
Concerning Hofstadter's talks. They were interesting; he 'spoke' in limerick style much like he does in the book, in a speculative fashion. 'twas very entertaining, but at times not particularly informative. But then again, GEB is all about making you think and ponder, definitey not a 'just the facts m'am' kind of book, and as a speaker he stuck to that.

How UN-zen of me, to have had an expectation of what a talk by Hofstadter would be like. My mental image is not like what you described.
I'm back to thinking I would enjoy a concert by John Williams more. Actually, Paul Galbraith is my current fav. He's my ideal player - have you heard his recording of the S&P's?
So, how was the course on GEB? Was it a bear - like the book is, as far as understanding it - at least understanding it well enough to get a high grade in the final. I can just see the essay question:
Describe in detail what is meant by an "aperiodic crystal" or even worse:
Prove the MI=>MU conversion.
Just worrying about those kinds of questions would have kept me awake at night.

[rdubb]

the course was really hard. It was an upper-divison philosophy class, and iw as just a freshman at the time. This was also about 9 years ago....In fact I believe I failed the final, and the class. I was taking too many classes that quarter, ones that I believed i'd like but didnt realize how much work theyd be, like C programming, that class, a european intellectual history class, etc. And, y'know, doin....(cue sound of loud bong-rip). But i got my shitte together by the next year.

I haven't heard Galbraith's recording yet, but I"ve heard many great things about it, not just from you. I should just go to amazon now and get it...

[Libre]

What are you waiting for!!!
This recording has altered my mind-set as much as GEB has. I'm totally obsessed with this recording.
I must tell you, the first 10 times I listened to it, it all sort of glommed together, and I had no concept of the full majesty of his playing. Like, the first time I heard Glenn Gould play the Well Tempered Clavier.
Then, all of a sudden it kicked in.
Paul Galbraith is the best player of Bach on the guitar that i have ever heard. Pepe Romero, Parkening, Bream, Williams, most off all, Segovia, they ALL take a back seat to Galbraith.
HURRY UP AND GET IT ALREADY!

[Russell Fan]

I don't understand what all the hype is about on Paul Galbraith. I've listened to parts of his Bach recordings and don't get much from his playing. He seems to have a very mechanical approach to how he plays the pieces, without much passion or musicality. Musicality is key to the guitar. Before Stanley Yates, my old teacher told me... "Technique is transparent - and only a "tool" in your "musical toolbox" that helps you become more musical." I might be wrong about Galbraith as I haven't heard all of the stuff he has recorded, this is just my observation.

[KatieG]

Check out the following publications concerning Zen and The Guitar!

ZEN GUITAR - Philip Toshio Sudo $9.00
Zen and the Art of Guitar: A Path to Guitar Mastery (Book and CD) - $19.99

I have them and found them insightful and a pleasant departure from the usualguitar instruction manuals. 8)

[KatieG]

I have to agree with Russel on this one libre! My impression of Paul Galbraith is that he's too mechanical and doesn't have the technique that some other guitarists have. There's a huge difference in playing by rote minus feeling and actually feeling the music and letting it flow throught your fingertips.

Just my opinion. 8)

[Libre]

Lots of people say that about Williams too. Me, I think Williams is brilliant - beyond reporach! It's all a matter of taste, really. I don't see how Galbraith's technique can be critisized, though. To me, his technique, as well as his phrasing and his sound, his ornamentation, his overall conception, is ideal. Someone that puts TOO much "passion" into Bach - like let's say Segovia - that spoils it for me. To me, the music is passion, all by itself. I don't want too much interpretation, just accurate technique and phrasing, and of course, a great sound. Galbraith provides all that to me.

I don't get the big deal about David Russell.
I have 1 Russell recording, I haven't listened to it more than 2 or 3 times, and it doesn't do much for me at all.
The Galbraith Sonatas & Partitas - the first time I heard the recording, I was driving home from work. As I listened to it, I began to get impatient, and started hitting the >| button (next track), I would listen for a few moments, then >| again. I didn't listen to it again for about 6 months. Next time, I gave it a little more. Then I started working on some of the pieces, so I listened to it again. Suddenly, I was totally hooked!
Not saying that would happen to you - or anyone else. He has had his share of critisizm on this forum. But me - I resonate with his playing.

[KatieG]

libre

I agree 100% that it is truly a matter of personal taste! Also one has to add their own musical experience whether self taught, classically trained or any combination thereof into this equation.

Just as no two people can have the same identical visual experience when viewing an incident so it's the same with musical experience. Your ear as well as your soul will also figure into the this experience too. Music is a unique experience for every one we all will have varying differences of opinions when it comes to individual musicians and how we percieve them.

[Libre]

Katie-
YES! And also, WHEN we perceive them. What I mean is, the FIRST version of a song or piece I get hooked on, becomes THE version. Like, Frank Sinatra singing Lucy In The Sky just doesn't cut it. Butt, anybody EXCEPT Frankie singing I've Got You Under My Skin would not cut it either.

I never was much into the Sonatas and Partitas except for the really famous parts, like the Chaconne, and the famous Fugue that lots of guitarists play, and also the one that is also the 4th Lute Suite, but most of the 6 violin suites were unknown to me. As I said before, when I first started hearing them, they all sort of just glommed together - I couldn't tell one piece from the next. But eventually it all became familiar- each piece is it's own universe to me now - and I have Galbraith's sound and phrasing so ingrained in me, it's the only thing that seems right. at this point. I play some of the pieces though, and I play them MY OWN WAY. Somewhat more impassioned than Galbraith, perhaps, but not slobbering all over the guitar, either.

[KatieG]

Bingo! Now you've got my meaning! I wasn't bashing - just pointing out everyone hears things differently! Let's say Galbraith is your very first exposure to classical guitar then whatever else you hear will be judged by his particular interpretation.

[Libre]

Katie
Let's say Galbraith is your very first exposure to classical guitar then whatever else you hear will be judged by his particular interpretation.

That may be quite true, but in my case, it is anything but! It is my first exposure to Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Unaccompanied Violin, transcribed for guitar (except for the odd piece that is in the standard guitar literature). It's far from my first exposure to classical guitar, however, as I've been listening to it - and a player myself - since J.F.K. was the President of the United States! Since then, and especially since about 1970, I have listened to oceans of classical guitarists - and have recorded 3 CD's myself, which I think that you are aware.

You are right that the first exposure to a certain SPECIFIC piece could influence me - or, in the case of a novice - how he (or she) might perceive the entire art form.

To everyone:
To get back to the assertion that Galbraith plays mechanically, and without passion - I COULD NOT AGREE LESS! True, it is in the ear of the listener, and a matter of taste, a point on which we have already agreed.
It is of interest to point out, however, that BACH HIMSELF is thought (only by the crudest philistines, to be sure) to be mechanical and without passion. I could NEVER understand that point of view, and think it to be profoundly false. I extend the same bewilderment at how someone might think Galbraith plays mechanically. Maybe I need to hear other greats play the same suites, before coming to a final decision. But---I never come to a FINAL DECISION about stuff like this - only temporary opinions. For a long while, I thought John Williams could not be exceeded in his playing of Bach - now I prefer Galbraith (partially because of his 8 string and his ability to get those resonant low basses) - but also because it is a pleasant change after all those years of Williams. I really don't see how Galbraith's virtuosity can be disputed - his interpretatations, perhaps. To say that technique is only a tool, well, you might say to Da Vinci that a painbrush is only a tool as well. I don't think the statement is meaningfull in Galbraith's case.
For a few select pieces, I like Segovia's arrangements but usually his playing is to quirky for me - when it comes to Bach.
Finally, I'd like to add that Glenn Gould is my overall favorite Bach interpreter of all time. I sense a certain similarity between Galbraith and Gould.