How Hard Can It Be?

[Guitar Slim]

CGlover has started a thread requesting suggestions for a Torroba piece to work on, and there was some discussion about which pieces were harder, etc. And it got me thinking about a question I've wanted to pose here for a long time:

What, exactly, makes a piece "difficult"?

You would think that as the years go by my sense of what is difficult and what isn't would become more refined. But in fact, it seems to be becoming more vague instead. After all, solid fundamental technique is requred to play the simplest pieces well -- to truly execute one's musical ideas. And pieces that seem challenging at first, of course, become easier as one practices them (duh!).

No doubt the answer varies from person to person, depending on their strengths or weaknesses as a musician. Some of the things I find tough (and presume other's do as well): awkward chord changes, especially those that involve a big shift plus a siginificant change of hand and finger orientation. Add one or more big stretches to the equation and I think almost all guitarists would find something like that difficult. Playing something like that legato, with control of all of the the voices, qualifies as one of the most challenging things in my book.

Of course, that's just one example of what I find challenging. It's all challenging! Another thing I find is that, some pieces really seem difficult at first, but it has more to do with reading, learning and memorizing. Once it's been learned, it turns out to not be so technically challenging after all. Do you consider such a piece to also be "difficult"?

Interestingly, I don't really consider a fast tempo alone to be all that significant in deciding the difficulty of a specific piece. In part because, for me, my ability to play at peppy tempos has a lot to do with how much time overall I've been spending with the guitar, and what shape my chops are in. In other words, my ability to play at faster tempos has as much to do with the overall level of my technique as it does the amount of work I've spent on a specific piece.

But tempo is certainly important as a secondary factor. Some things are easier to do at slower tempos and more difficult at faster tempos. And a suprising number of things are easier to do at faster tempos, but diffcult to play more slowly -- at least, to play musically.

Ok, I'm rambling. But -- what makes a piece difficult for you? Is it just technical challenges? Does it also include difficulty reading, learning and memorizing a piece? Pieces that are musically challenging but not necessarily technically challenging? And how do you judge one piece as more difficult than another?

I'm geniunely interested in your responses.

[rdubb]

Deep question, this could be a very interesting thread.

In an attempt to apply mr. ockam's razor, I would say that 'difficult' or 'easy' is directly correlated to how refined your internal standards are, not at all to the 'level' of the piece. The 'simplest' of studies, or even single-line melodies can become extremely challenging if your standard is perfect legato, creamy warm tone, and liquid dynamic shaping.

Here's some more food for thought: I do a lot of yoga, all kinds including very strenuous power yoga type classes. In some classes they will say "do pose X, or else try modification Y for level 2-3, or modification Z for level 3-4". The modifications are of course usually deeper stretches and balances, closing in on the classic "pretzel" like shapes.

My favorite teacher, though, likes to say that "level 2-3 or 3-4" is coming down to rest (in child's pose), or else taking an easier modification where you have more control and ease. I agree. True advancement results from ease and control, not trying to push onself into more difficult poses or shapes, likely creating tension and dis-ease.

[Todd]

Deep question, this could be a very interesting thread.

In an attempt to apply mr. ockam's razor, I would say that 'difficult' or 'easy' is directly correlated to how refined your internal standards are, not at all to the 'level' of the piece. The 'simplest' of studies, or even single-line melodies can become extremely challenging if your standard is perfect legato, creamy warm tone, and liquid dynamic shaping.



There you have it. Dont think it could be said any better.

End thread.....:)

TK

[cgram@adelphia.net]

It's funny, having just read cg lover's query into the relative difficulties of various Torroba pieces, I found myself scanning this section of the forum as thoughts nearly identical to Slim's swam through my mind. How can one piece be considered to be definitively more difficult than another? Anything is possible, at least in my experience, regardless of how daunting a piece may sound initially. But I think we can simplify the question by looking specifically at the thinking that went into the previously mentioned Torroba discussion. Cg lover clearly has a set of defined standards and procedures going into a piece, and to assess the relative challenge of that piece of music, he likely makes pre-judgements about the level of effort he must put in to achieve these standards. I think that's what we all do. But that's what makes developing a standardized system of difficulty ratings to assign to the repertoire futile, because one person may have a much higher standard than another, and I'm sure we can all relate to the phenomenon of rediscovering a piece we put down long ago as complete and finding in it a world of new musical and technical challenges. This happens to me repeatedly as part of my continual development as a musician.

This question also brought to mind something that I have been pondering lately, namely the question of perfection, and mistakes. I used to be of the commonly-held opinion that masters of any art, but particularly music, were essentially flawless, and that a Horowitz or a Heifetz could perform completely without error. However, it has occurred to me that as I have gotten more developed as a musician, a practicer, and a self-critic, the word 'mistake' has taken on new meaning. As previously discussed, my standards have risen considerably, and now a mistake can be something as subtle as a split second's hesitation, a finger slip, or an overly tense finger placement. So perhaps the essence of truly masterful musicianship cannot be described as a complete freedom from error, but rather as an abundance of egregious but ineffably subtle and minute errors that could never be dreamt of by anyone but the musician himself. Progress on any instrument can be seen as analogous to zooming in with a microscope: complexities, and imperfections, abound and become clear to an alarming degree, but go completely unnoticed by the vast majority of people.

Anyway, sorry that was so long, but I found this discussion quite fascinating.

James

[rdubb]

So perhaps the essence of truly masterful musicianship cannot be described as a complete freedom from error, but rather as an abundance of egregious but ineffably subtle and minute errors that could never be dreamt of by anyone but the musician himself. Progress on any instrument can be seen as analogous to zooming in with a microscope: complexities, and imperfections, abound and become clear to an alarming degree, but go completely unnoticed by the vast majority of people.

Anyway, sorry that was so long, but I found this discussion quite fascinating.

James

I like your re-definition of 'error'. It puts it in a more positive context.

[thraex]

Lately there are very few interesting threads, and once there is...i missed it!!
It all has been said..

I will just state, that it is very sad (although ignorance is a bliss) that most people never realize any of these dilemmas of error-perfection, easiness-difficulty.

Everything is difficult when is worth it.

[thedrizzle]

I find the most difficult thing about CG music is finding the phrasing for various composers. I have played lots of Barrios pieces and feel I have a grasp of how he phrases sections of music but until recently had never played any Ponce. My teacher had no comments on my technical grasp of the piece but has constantly been recommending new fingerings to articulate the phrasings of the music because I was simply playing the notes correctly but not communicating the phrase. Those are the aspects I find most difficult. The Bach Chaconne is not the most technically difficult piece but is probably the most musically demanding. My 2 cents. Great question though.

[johnquantran]

Try the require piece for GFA Competition 2007 this year, the Sonata Classica 4th movement by Ponce will see how hard it is.
--JT

[Great Googly Moogly]

Call me crazy but if you started out trying to learn Fernando Sor's Study #5 in B minor and Sueno en la Floresta by Barrios at the same time, I think you'd have the Sor piece mastered faster? Possibly that is because Sueno en la Floresta is more difficult? WTF?

[Mister Lovaguitara]

Locust777 I agree but I don't think this is what this is about. of chorus there are pieces that are differently harder then others. playing Sueno en la Florsta for sure would be harder the Study #5 in B minor. but I think the point is that the Study could be hard as well if you are aiming to play it musically perfect with just the right balance, colors, dynamics and character in each line (bass melody, accompaniment). in that way, and once you have the technical ability, playing the study perfect may be harder then simply playing the barrios without screwing it up. I personally have always felt that it is not what you play but how you play it. I would rather listen to Bream playing Study in B minor then here some Chinese girl play the Barrios. After all it is all music and it is beautiful when played well, but quite disturbing (at least to me) when played badly.

I always concentrate on playing beautifully when I play, making the music sound the best it can and how I feel I want it as my top top top priority. I know this isn't the case with many players today, but for me Technique is one of the tools for me to express the music, and never my main goal. I feel that comes with time, and I give it it's fair amount of practice as I feel.

[rdubb]

i kind of like the idea promulgated by Shearer in the 70's of making hotshot players play carcassi studies slowly for a year (most likely solfegging them outloud as well...).

yeah, that's rough, but he was reacting against how ghastly horrible and in the dark ages guitar teaching was (and still is to a certain extent)...that basic technique, relaxation, economy, concentration, and musicianship is horribly lacking in guitarists.

[condeclaro]

Here is an excerpt from an interview with David Tanenbaum on studying with Aaron Shearer. This section I believe was cut from the article that appeared in Guitar Teacher Magazine:

"He was very strict and felt that the first thing the teacher should do was break down the will of the student. He believed there was only one way to move the muscles and play well. He taught that you had to avoid confusion and error at all cost, to the point that he discouraged sight-reading. He thought you should completely finger and memorize a piece before really playing it. All the work was theoretically done, and you only played perfectly when you played the guitar. He would hand me a new piece of music that had left-hand fingerings in red, right-hand markings in blue, phrase marks in green, expression marks in black and I was to execute it that way, never making a mistake."

AS is a lightning rod for sure.

The rest of this interview can be found on Mark Small's website. http://smallclementeduo.com/articles/

[thraex]

Maybe some of you have read this old interview in Bungarten's site, but since it has to do with our theme, I pasted it here.

What he said is true, in my first year (november 2005) I began playing open strings most of my lessons, and learning either Sor etudes or Tarrega preludes. Until now, I think that was one of the best periods in my life, and hardest, also, because playing Tarrega's chord preludio (5?) has been the most frustrating experience I could have had.
But playing hours (I still do everyday at least 30m) open strings, paying attention to my hand, sound, and everything, is at the core of the musical journey. I think Shearer was right, but he was more in a tecnical level, whereas Bungarten is more deeply preocupied with showing us the way to connect to the inner music in us, without telling it, just hinting it, and then we must find it.
The last weeks I have been busy with Rodrigo, but that is easy, in a way, what I find difficult right now is to get exactly the movement of my alternating index and middle fingers in the way WE think it gets the best, according to my guitar, technique and position. It is a search.

But when music comes, we have to pay so much detail to it, that we better have the right tools.
Even this monday, I spent the first 45 m o my lesson showing him my summer's pinky's finger LH slur work ;), then the RH alternating movement, even those 2 things I did even when I started playing guitar as a kid, are still pretty much something I can improve everyday.

Then let's just go to the musical part....
that is why I said before that the better we become, the more difficult it gets everything, in a way, although we actually are more eficient, also.


- This morning in your class you were showing how a line should be phrased by singing it. Suddenly it was a lovely legato phrase, and it made sense.
FB: Playing the guitar with the same directness as if one were singing is certainly the goal, and in fact it is the basis of everything else. With my pupils in the solo class – the highest level – I begin with Fernando Sor’s Etude No. 1, and students with the most advanced technique find it just as hard to play a simple, onepart, naked melody naturally and easily as first semester students do. I base everything on this fundamental experience. Everything, even the most difficult things, must be connected with the natural quality of breathing, with dynamics, with the living interaction of tension and relaxation. Unfortunately, with the guitar it is all too easy to think too much about finger technique and separate the mechanical processes from musical perception. I try to counteract this. First of all, you have to grasp the structure, the inner content, the spiritual perception of the music. Without this, your fingers cannot make a single meaningful movement. This means that ‘practise more’ means simply ‘understand more profoundly’.

[rdubb]

[I]But playing hours (I still do everyday at least 30m) open strings, paying attention to my hand, sound, and everything, is at the core of the musical journey. I think Shearer was right, but he was more in a tecnical level, whereas Bungarten is more deeply preocupied with showing us the way to connect to the inner music in us, without telling it, just hinting it, and then we must find it.


Shearer did, i think, evolve his pedagogy over time. His second method, from 1990, incorporated a lot more discussion of musical elements and interpretation. I think though that he is a scientist at heart as he still break things down into categories, processes, systesms, subsystems, and whatnot.

You have to agree with Tanenbaum in that he was the first teacher to bring objectivity and procedural and intellectual rigor to guitar study (at least in the United States, cant speak for the rest of the world), thus making him the Dean Of Guitar Teachers.

Bill Kanengeiser can take cheap shots at Shearer on the GFA comedy stage (y'all seen that video right), but the fact is that when Barrueco gets on stage he is absolutey bulletproof, and as musical and interesting as Kanengeiser is, he's not nearly as consistent. (shearer was barrueco's prinicipal teacher)

[thraex]

Shearer did, i think, evolve his pedagogy over time. His second method, from 1990, incorporated a lot more discussion of musical elements and interpretation. I think though that he is a scientist at heart as he still break things down into categories, processes, systesms, subsystems, and whatnot.
I can well think that his method evolved, that is not up to discussion, nor his importance in pedagogy or development of the guitar.

You have to agree with Tanenbaum in that he was the first teacher to bring objectivity and procedural and intellectual rigor to guitar study (at least in the United States, cant speak for the rest of the world), thus making him the Dean Of Guitar Teachers.
Precisely, it is surprising how little communication was between the main classical music worlds up until now. There must be some sort of influcence, but in practice, I think few know Shearer outside N.America.

Bill Kanengeiser can take cheap shots at Shearer on the GFA comedy stage (y'all seen that video right), but the fact is that when Barrueco gets on stage he is absolutey bulletproof, and as musical and interesting as Kanengeiser is, he's not nearly as consistent. (shearer was barrueco's prinicipal teacher) That is a good point, because being Barrueco as successful as he has been, was the real product of Shearer's teachings, even if not everybody knew about his influence on him. At the same time, Barrueco has stated that Shearer was the best teacher he could have hoped at that time, even though musically was improvable. Even though I find Barrueco not bulletproof (who is, anyway?) nor very musically interesting at everything he has done (although some of his playing I really like), I think his influence is long lasting and his "touch" with subsequent generations will be very perceivable.
...

[rdubb]

I like your method of color quoting thraex....but too much time for me to replicate right now.

i'm pretty american i suppose in that i like hyperbole...nah Barrueco is not bulletproof, he's still a human being. He does very rarely make concentration errors on stage, which is fascinating if you read his interviews and he himself states that despite his ability was very erratic before he met Mr. Shearer.

I would love to know how pedagogy evolved in europe, who the main pillars are, and all that. I'm a guitar nerd through and through. I'm gonna try to get my a** to europe. Lets hang out!

[Jubilee Valence]

...like the sands in the hourglass...*

..speed DO count!!??

Jubiduuu'
_____

*(for our "EU" folks, that's a little "soap opera" quote...)
______

survivin'