But Sharon Isbin loved it!

[JSK]

(Or at least they paid her to say that.) Well, I just finished reading "Practicing: A Musician's Return to Music," by Glenn Kurtz. Okay, I'm just an amateur guitarist of questionable talent, but I found the book overwrought, self-indulgent, not particularly well-written, and with very little to offer, musically speaking. But hey, that's just one boy's opinion.

Having given that sterling review, I'm very willing to part with the book to anyone who might want it. I'd considered selling it to my local used bookstore, but I suspect it would sit there on the shelf, gathering dust, and, as I said, my opinion of the book was just that. And I'd rather it fall into the hands of a classical guitarist, who might find something in there that I'd missed. So if anyone's interested in obtaining it, let me know, and I'll mail it to you (book rate's on me; if you want anything faster, we can negotiate).

Bidding's open!

[Richard]

Thank you, JSK, for that breath-of-fresh-air review. That book is the most pretentious piece of drivel I've ever tried to read. Yes, "tried" to read. It's so difficult getting through the first 20 pages, and I'm personally obsessed by classical guitar. If it doesn't engage me, it's got to be truly awful. It's the type of self-important, navel-contemplation that gives artists a bad name.

[JCPO]

I started trying to read the book well over two months ago and never even got to the 20th page. It's so poorly written that I tossed it in the trash.

[JSK]

Well, then, perhaps sitting on a bookshelf at my local used bookstore, gathering dust, is where it belongs. Gratifying to know I wasn't alone in my assessment (and, gee, I was pulling my punches in my review, in deference to someone who actually might have found some merit in the book!).

[Richard]

Well, the book got a much better reception at the AG forum, for what it's worth:
http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=007914#000000

[rdubb]

I didn't think the book was that bad.

I mostly skipped over the psuedo-poetic parts (which I agree, is pretty much drivel).

Having played out as a kid as a CG'er (though not at all as a 'prodigy' by any means), and having been to a major conservatory studying guitar, I got a kick out of those chapters.

I also felt he captured SOME aspects of the mental dialogue and philisophical implications in deep practicing as well. Issues and concerns that come up pretty much only when you go through a period when you're severley serious about it (practicing, that is).

those who have gone through periods of intense practice and dedication who feel that he didn't capture what was going on for them very well are more than entitled to their opinion as well.....I just felt that he did capture some of that flavor for me.

Overall I'd give the book about a 5/10, if I were to rate it. I at least appreciate what he was _trying_ to do, though he did kind of miss the mark.

[cgram@adelphia.net]

Which conservatory did you attend, rdubb?

[Steve Lin]

At Boston GuitarFest 2007 this past June, there was a small box delivered to our door. I happened to be there to receive it, and was told by the person that the author was donating the book to the festival, to be handed out as free gifts to the participants. Within a few minutes they were all gone.

I took a copy, kinda. You know how festivals go wild sometimes? Well, they do, and apparently I lent it to a friend but don't recall that.

Also, if only I knew how to read, I could contribute something meaningful to this thread.

Actually, my friend found the book "ok." What did Isbin love about it?

[JSK]

Reading's not so difficult, Steve. Presumably, you already know the first seven letters of the alphabet -- A, B, C, D, E, F, G -- so there are only 19 more letters to learn, none of which have related sharps or flats, which makes it even easier.

Sharon Isbin "donated" a blurb to the back cover of "Practicing, etc.," as did David Tanenbaum and others, the names of whom I no longer remember (having gotten no acceptances to my offer to mail the book to anyone on this forum, I donated my copy to my local library). I don't know if the publisher mailed the book to thousands of classical guitarists -- I know I didn't get one! -- for their impressions, and chose the four or five positive responses to the book to print on the back jacket, or if they just got lucky and all the people to whom they sent it thought it was "compelling," "insightful," et cetera.

Actually, the one area of the book to which I could relate was Kurtz's description of NEC and student life there. My brother got his masters in jazz piano from NEC in 1981 and I used to hang around there with him a lot, so I could relate to that sense of the students all vying for the best practice rooms and the prevailing sense of paranoia and competitiveness (man, I thought law school was bad!). Apart from that, however, I found the book fairly worthless, for the reasons that I, and others, enunciated above.

Hopefully, your post-NEC guitar career will flourish more brilliantly than our man Kurtz's did. You seem to have what it takes, musically. Other indulgences, like reading, can wait . . . .

[rdubb]

I met Kurtz at the GFA this past weekend, and had a nice conversation with him.

Smart, likeable guy. Say what you will about the book ;), he was at least enjoyable to talk to.

Yes I know he was there to promote the book, but he was very low key and humble.

[MPD]

Probably not a contender for either a Nobel or a Pulitzer, but I'm not aware of any other book on this subject which is better. I'd imagine it's a bit difficult to write about the self-absorbed world of musicians in conservatory without running the risk of some of the criticisms cited above. Most of the degreed professional classical musicians I knew as as adolescents and young adults displayed hyperbolic swings between narcissism, self-doubt and a disproportionate sense of angst. A great majority of these were poorly served by institutions which lured them further and further into debt knowing they had insufficient talent to make a living with their degree. It's my opinion the book well captured the author's evolution of maturity in a way which both reflected and moved beyond it.

If a mature and objective jury were to listen to all the students entering conservatories last fall, I believe it could predict with better than 80% accuracy, which would and which would not ever become professional musicians able to support themselves entirely upon their performance potential and educational credential(s). Therein lies my my indictment of the conservatory system. It perpetuates itself, like most liberal arts programs, for the greater good of the faculty, and like all good houses of prostitution, is more concerned with maintaining the customers' illusion he (or she) is a great performer than acquainting him with the hard facts of life. There are notable exceptions to this glittering generality, both conservatories and professors, but in the main, tell me this isn't true.

[cgram@adelphia.net]

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience with conservatory and are jaded because of it, but I don't think conservatory really offers false promises. Just as in anything, not everyone there will be a huge success. All acceptance to a conservatory means is that you've made it far enough to get into conservatory. From there, maybe the top players in the best schools will turn into the world's up-and-coming crop of top classical musicians, but other than that, the vast majority will become teachers, smaller-scale performers, or will add to the community of musicians in some other, lower-profile way. If you entered conservatory with delusions of grandeur and aspirations of coming out at the level of Isaac Stern, then no wonder you have this opinion. I'm studying in conservatory right now, and I'm not kidding myself. Overall, it seems I am one of the better guitarists in the program, but does that mean I'm gonna come out as Segovia or Fisk? No, it just means I'm going to do what I love and develop my art for as long as I can. And if it doesn't work out, I'll turn to one of my other interests/talents.
I think expecting judges at an audition to weed out all those who aren't prodigies is crazy. There are many examples of prodigies burning out before age 20, and many times, particularly, it seems, among guitarists, the greatest development keeps happening into the 30's. David Russell claims he was nothing special until he was about 25 or so. I for one am glad that he was not discarded by a jaded, cynical audition committee, because look at what he has given us now.

[MPD]

I had to re-read my post to see why you think I was disappointed. I wasn't a conservatory student; just a good friend of dozens who have been. My observations are based entirely upon what I've seen go in and come out, together with countless hours listening to the soul-searching of people who were disappointed by the reality. These have included some world-class solo concert artists, musicians playing with notable orchestras and chamber groups, and one woman lucky to have a job teaching music in grade schools. I've no practical suggestion for how the situtation may be improved upon, but I believe the financial risks involved in a conservatory education (really, any university education these days) warrant an aggressive risk calculus.

Everyone should be free to "take their shot" at whatever their dream is. But where predictable disappointment is more likely than not, an overly indulgent faculty does more harm than good. The challenge of course lies in what metrics to use. Training performance artists is not like training aircraft pilots, surgeons or other professions where there are bright lines that make success and failure more objectively measurable.

[rdubb]

music school grads that "don't make it" or else are okay with a life of constant teaching and moving around for gigs and teaching jobs end up as lawyers or computer programmers, or in business. i dont' think that means that their time spent in music school was a waste of time and money necessarily; they just needed to go through that experience for whatever reason in their evolution/maturation process. people f**k up and go into debt for lots of other worse reasons.

actually these are the people that keep the music world running, along with dedicated hobbyists who never went to music school. they usually keep their deep love for music, and actually have money to buy cd's, go to concerts, attend lectures, fly to GFA's etc. etc.

[BrentinFL]

actually these are the people that keep the music world running, along with dedicated hobbyists who never went to music school. they usually keep their deep love for music, and actually have money to buy cd's, go to concerts, attend lectures, fly to GFA's etc. etc.

ditto

[JSK]

Very nicely put, Rob. There are two categories of people in the music world: those who can make a living making music and those who, whether directly or indirectly, support their efforts. If I can't be among the former, I'm happy, and proud, to be among the latter.

[Sandra]

Everyone should be free to "take their shot" at whatever their dream is.
Agreed, but the truth is, relatively few with degrees in music performance will go on to "stardom" in their chosen field.

Have you ever seen Penelope Spheeris' film "The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years "? She interviewed aspiring rock stars and asked them what they would do if their musical career didn't work out. Every single person adamantly said "there's no way I won't make it". And, of course, most of them didn't make it in the music biz.

[cgram@adelphia.net]

Stardom in rock is completely different from stardom in classical music. Although there are some "extra-musical" factors in both, rock stardom is determined almost solely by image, fads, taste, etc., and not at all by skill (there are exceptions). Was Kurt Cobain a virtuoso guitarist? Of course not, any 15-year-old kid next door can play that stuff. Every famous classical musician is, to some degree, a virtuoso. Are there musicians better than Ana Vidovic, but without the body, languising in neglect and obscurity? Most likely. But the standards of classical music do take a lot of the guesswork out of the equation. Whereas in other fields, it's completely about physical appearance, random coincidences, contacts, and the whims of the popular market, in classical music there are defined standards and expectations, and you'll have people along the way giving you an idea of where you stand. Additionally, in rock, only stars can be really successful. In the classical world, there's always room for more teachers, theorists, historians, etc., and even the greatest performers often engage in these activities as well. Did George Harrison ever teach for a living? No. But Eliot Fisk, Manuel Barrueco, Scott Tenant et al certainly do. Also, was your first classical music teacher famous? Unlkely. But he or she was probably not starving. So again, I think expecting stardom from conservatory training is ludicrous, and nobody would suggest that that's plausible for most people. In many cases, the biggest stars are already approaching stardom before entering school anyway. But making a living in classical music does not require stardom, whereas in other fields it often does.

[Jodet]

I'd rather practice than read a book about practing.

;)

[wiglebot]

Yea, there is nothing wrong with a world full of cultured, educated people with big dreams that play classical guitar.

Even if they have some debt getting that way.