Potential Threat to Top BLD Cubers

JemFish · Feb 9, 2015

sneaklyfox said:
Oh yes, the bow does require a lot of skill to play well but it's more subjective and more dependent on interpretation. For playing in tune, either you're right or you're wrong. I will attempt to explain a bit more about the bow. There are just so many variables at every point in time that depend on each other to some degree and need to be finely controlled : speed, pressure, angle, placement relative to the bridge, etc... and meanwhile where the bow touches the string is always changing. For pressure, all your fingers have to work together to give the right type of pressure. And the thing is it's not so easy to practice slowly because you will run out of bow. And then there are techniques like spiccato which requires you to do it at speed and be able to control the way the bow bounces off the string. The tone you are trying to create can change in so many different ways because there are so many variables. So it's hardly ever exactly the same so you have to listen very carefully to so many more changes to know how you should play the next note.

Thanks for opening my eyes to the reality of bowing! I sort of guessed about the things you said when I saw violinists/cellists at concerts, but I didn't think that it was that complicated. Would you say that there are more possibilities for interpretation on violin than piano? So many variables would give a lot of flexibility (and open doors for creativity), too, I think.

sneaklyfox said:
When I say "being musical", I am talking about interpretation as opposed to "being technical". For example, what is a tasteful rubato? Playing steadily and with proper rhythm is hard for some people. Playing rubato must be a headache for them. When you make a crescendo of four notes, how much louder should each succeeding note be? Unmusical musicians don't really know how to play rubato properly, change dynamics properly, play rit. or accel., breathe and phrase nicely, shape their lines well, and all such stuff, etc. etc.

I agree. A great musician is one who is musical, and yet puts a lot of effort into 'being technical'. I see that you're musical just by reading what you write. I am too, but I'm not brilliant because my skills are a bit lacking on the technical side; the result of too much cubing and too little piano practice, hehe...

kcl · Feb 9, 2015

I played violin for years, and Sneaklyfox is entirely correct. If your bow has bad technique you get a bad sound. If your left hand has bad technique, you're out of tune. I have relative pitch as well, and I believe it's far more advantageous because of the fact that intonation is a relative thing. For example, the US generally tunes pianos to A 440. In Europe they go up to 441-443. Absolute/perfect pitch would make that drive a person crazy, while relative pitch allows the player to adapt. It works the same way with an out of tune piano for accompaniment. The violin tunes to the piano because the intonation is relative.

In terms of musicality, I have a great example. My mom once had a student who was one of the most technically advanced players I've ever heard. He could power through any major concerto with ease, and yet I couldn't stand listening to him play. He had no life in his playing, and was pure technique. If he had taken the music and shaped it to be his own, he would've been much easier to listen to.

sneaklyfox · Feb 10, 2015

JemFish said:
Thanks for opening my eyes to the reality of bowing! I sort of guessed about the things you said when I saw violinists/cellists at concerts, but I didn't think that it was that complicated. Would you say that there are more possibilities for interpretation on violin than piano? So many variables would give a lot of flexibility (and open doors for creativity), too, I think.

I agree. A great musician is one who is musical, and yet puts a lot of effort into 'being technical'. I see that you're musical just by reading what you write. I am too, but I'm not brilliant because my skills are a bit lacking on the technical side; the result of too much cubing and too little piano practice, hehe...

I guess in a way there's more possibilities for interpretation. But maybe I think of it more like there are just more details to control. Sometimes playing piano is like having to imagine all the parts that you cannot really control (as you might be able to with a violin) to create a believable illusion that, for example, all your notes are getting louder at each point in time when in actuality each note begins to fade away as soon as you play it.

I guess I'm kind of like you. I didn't put quite enough time and effort into technique. One of my teachers put it this way: Technique gives you the tools you need, but music tells you want to do with the tools.

kclejeune said:
I played violin for years, and Sneaklyfox is entirely correct. If your bow has bad technique you get a bad sound. If your left hand has bad technique, you're out of tune. I have relative pitch as well, and I believe it's far more advantageous because of the fact that intonation is a relative thing. For example, the US generally tunes pianos to A 440. In Europe they go up to 441-443. Absolute/perfect pitch would make that drive a person crazy, while relative pitch allows the player to adapt. It works the same way with an out of tune piano for accompaniment. The violin tunes to the piano because the intonation is relative.

Yes, kclejeune has explained that quite well and was exactly what I was thinking.

kclejeune said:
In terms of musicality, I have a great example. My mom once had a student who was one of the most technically advanced players I've ever heard. He could power through any major concerto with ease, and yet I couldn't stand listening to him play. He had no life in his playing, and was pure technique. If he had taken the music and shaped it to be his own, he would've been much easier to listen to.

I've run into this many times. It's easy... just tell anyone to play the 2nd movement of a concerto (or some other slow piece) and you'll know whether he's musical or not. You might be able to listen to a fast movement played with dazzling technique but they have no idea what to do when they come across a slow movementl. Sometimes when I went to concerts, a very technical-unmusical player would perform. Afterwards the other people in the audience would comment on how wonderful the performance was (because they are dazzled by technique and flying fingers). I never know what to say in response so I mostly say nothing because I tend to keep my negative criticism to myself. What would you say?

JemFish · Feb 23, 2015

sneaklyfox said:
I guess in a way there's more possibilities for interpretation. But maybe I think of it more like there are just more details to control.

I think this is either a wonderful or terrible thing depending on the musician.

sneaklyfox said:
Sometimes playing piano is like having to imagine all the parts that you cannot really control (as you might be able to with a violin) to create a believable illusion that, for example, all your notes are getting louder at each point in time when in actuality each note begins to fade away as soon as you play it.

You're right about the illusion...I have never actually thought about that before except this one time when a jazz teacher told me to pretend I was playing a trombone, making a certain chord appear - haha, appear - to get louder before it collapsed into the next chord. Also, there is a similar spot in one of my exam pieces that I try to make that illusion you talked about.

sneaklyfox said:
I guess I'm kind of like you. I didn't put quite enough time and effort into technique. One of my teachers put it this way: Technique gives you the tools you need, but music tells you want to do with the tools.

I'm going to use that quote from now on...

sneaklyfox said:
Yes, kclejeune has explained that quite well and was exactly what I was thinking.

I've run into this many times. It's easy... just tell anyone to play the 2nd movement of a concerto (or some other slow piece) and you'll know whether he's musical or not. You might be able to listen to a fast movement played with dazzling technique but they have no idea what to do when they come across a slow movementl. Sometimes when I went to concerts, a very technical-unmusical player would perform. Afterwards the other people in the audience would comment on how wonderful the performance was (because they are dazzled by technique and flying fingers). I never know what to say in response so I mostly say nothing because I tend to keep my negative criticism to myself. What would you say?

If it was someone who would be offended if I said something negative, I would say "Uh yeah, it was...pretty good" but making sure my facial expression said the opposite.

If it was my piano teacher or a friend/family member, I would say something like "This guy/girl just doesn't have it."

But I'm generally not very forgiving when it comes to commenting on music.

cmhardw · Feb 23, 2015

I don't like this idea that someone either "has it" or they "don't" when it comes to musicality, as opposed to technicality. I used to be very involved in music, 1st chair NC All State on Bari sax in 7th grade, 1st Chair All State on Alto sax in 8th grade, the first sophomore in High School to make the Broughton Carolina brass band when normally brass players AND upperclassmen are in the band (2 strikes against me making it in). I also played for a semester in the UNC Chapel Hill lower level jazz band, an audition only band at a school with 40,000 undergrads. I would argue that I am a very musical player, and at one time decently technical.

I learned to be a musical player from my Dad, who used to tutor me on my All State audition pieces, my jazz band pieces, and my music practice in general. He was very supportive, but very honest in his feedback to me. If I played something technically, but not musically, he would tell me that it sounded boring (but well played). He would also give me advice on how to make it sound more musical.

Saying that someone either "is" or "is not" musical end-of-story-your-life-as-a-musician-will-either-be-wonderful-or-short-lived to me sounds like a load of crap. I'm sure at the world class musician level there is some level of genetic and predisposed ability at work, but for the vast majority of people I truly believe that a high level of musicality can be taught and is not something you either "have" or "don't".

/rant

Ickathu · Feb 23, 2015

cmhardw said:
I don't like this idea that someone either "has it" or they "don't" when it comes to musicality, as opposed to technicality. I used to be very involved in music, 1st chair NC All State on Bari sax in 7th grade, 1st Chair All State on Alto sax in 8th grade, the first sophomore in High School to make the Broughton Carolina brass band when normally brass players AND upperclassmen are in the band (2 strikes against me making it in). I also played for a semester in the UNC Chapel Hill lower level jazz band, an audition only band at a school with 40,000 undergrads. I would argue that I am a very musical player, and at one time decently technical.

I learned to be a musical player from my Dad, who used to tutor me on my All State audition pieces, my jazz band pieces, and my music practice in general. He was very supportive, but very honest in his feedback to me. If I played something technically, but not musically, he would tell me that it sounded boring (but well played). He would also give me advice on how to make it sound more musical.

Saying that someone either "is" or "is not" musical end-of-story-your-life-as-a-musician-will-either-be-wonderful-or-short-lived to me sounds like a load of crap. I'm sure at the world class musician level there is some level of genetic and predisposed ability at work, but for the vast majority of people I truly believe that a high level of musicality can be taught and is not something you either "have" or "don't".

/rant

So true. And not just with music - this applies to anything. I'm not naturally very good at karate - I have horrible balance, weak ankles, tight muscles, etc. because of a neurological disease (Charcot Marie Tooth). But if I just decided that I wasn't good at it, then I'd have quit a long time ago. But instead I decided to work extra hard and push myself to make up for my struggles.

I'm not naturally very good at piano - it's really, really hard for me to do. And I'm pretty terrible at it, but I like it, so I keep playing and I keep improving. Will I ever be as good as Mozart? Probably not, but that's more because I'm not interested in being as good as Mozart. If I wanted to be just as good, I'd minimize cubing, I'd minimize karate, I'd minimize XYZ and just play piano for 10 hours a day.

"Talent" is just an excuse that amateurs use to not improve.

sneaklyfox · Feb 23, 2015

cmhardw said:
I don't like this idea that someone either "has it" or they "don't" when it comes to musicality, as opposed to technicality. I used to be very involved in music, 1st chair NC All State on Bari sax in 7th grade, 1st Chair All State on Alto sax in 8th grade, the first sophomore in High School to make the Broughton Carolina brass band when normally brass players AND upperclassmen are in the band (2 strikes against me making it in). I also played for a semester in the UNC Chapel Hill lower level jazz band, an audition only band at a school with 40,000 undergrads. I would argue that I am a very musical player, and at one time decently technical.

I learned to be a musical player from my Dad, who used to tutor me on my All State audition pieces, my jazz band pieces, and my music practice in general. He was very supportive, but very honest in his feedback to me. If I played something technically, but not musically, he would tell me that it sounded boring (but well played). He would also give me advice on how to make it sound more musical.

Saying that someone either "is" or "is not" musical end-of-story-your-life-as-a-musician-will-either-be-wonderful-or-short-lived to me sounds like a load of crap. I'm sure at the world class musician level there is some level of genetic and predisposed ability at work, but for the vast majority of people I truly believe that a high level of musicality can be taught and is not something you either "have" or "don't".

/rant

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I know it isn't very appealing as a thought though. We all like to think we can attain something if we work hard enough at it, but I think being "musical" is one of those things that doesn't really happen just to work harder at it. It's not that you can't learn to be musical. Maybe I should call it "artistic expression" (what do they call it in figure skating? I forget.) But someone who isn't naturally musical can only get up to a certain level. Beyond that, it's pretty much out of their reach. As a violin and piano teacher, I know there's a big difference between someone who can and someone who can't. For the one who can't, the best I can do is give you my interpretation and coach you on every single little detail I can think of to make you play the way I want. My mom also taught piano and she was actually pretty good at this. She could take a technical player and create simulated musicality. Most people would be fooled, but in the end, it still falls short of the real thing. I don't know how it is playing sax but I imagine that violin, as one of the harder instruments in my opinion, would be harder to simulate well because of all the variables.

And certainly, even for people who aren't terribly musical-minded, it's definitely not an "end-of-story-your-life-as-a-musician-will-either-be-wonderful-or-short-lived" thing. Plenty of professionals are not top notch musical players but have plenty of technique and enough musicality to cut it. They don't really understand the song they're playing very well but make it sound interesting enough. I just wouldn't enjoy listening to them as much as someone else more genuine.

Dene · Feb 23, 2015

sneaklyfox said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. I know it isn't very appealing as a thought though. We all like to think we can attain something if we work hard enough at it, but I think being "musical" is one of those things that doesn't really happen just to work harder at it. It's not that you can't learn to be musical. Maybe I should call it "artistic expression" (what do they call it in figure skating? I forget.) But someone who isn't naturally musical can only get up to a certain level. Beyond that, it's pretty much out of their reach. As a violin and piano teacher, I know there's a big difference between someone who can and someone who can't. For the one who can't, the best I can do is give you my interpretation and coach you on every single little detail I can think of to make you play the way I want. My mom also taught piano and she was actually pretty good at this. She could take a technical player and create simulated musicality. Most people would be fooled, but in the end, it still falls short of the real thing. I don't know how it is playing sax but I imagine that violin, as one of the harder instruments in my opinion, would be harder to simulate well because of all the variables.

And certainly, even for people who aren't terribly musical-minded, it's definitely not an "end-of-story-your-life-as-a-musician-will-either-be-wonderful-or-short-lived" thing. Plenty of professionals are not top notch musical players but have plenty of technique and enough musicality to cut it. They don't really understand the song they're playing very well but make it sound interesting enough. I just wouldn't enjoy listening to them as much as someone else more genuine.

Not that I'm an expert, but it sounds to me like you're saying "I expect 'musicality' to be a particular way, and if people don't do it in that particular way I won't accept them".

It reminds me of people that are big into so-called "modern art". It's all bull crap, but these hippies and druggies are all "yeah man I totally feel the expression of inner pain and anxiety expressed in this pile of feces on a board". 99% of people look at it and go "what the hell". The rest say they're "modern artists".

JemFish · Feb 24, 2015

cmhardw said:
Saying that someone either "is" or "is not" musical end-of-story-your-life-as-a-musician-will-either-be-wonderful-or-short-lived to me sounds like a load of crap.

It is a load of crap, you're right, but that crap doesn't exist, because...

cmhardw said:
I'm sure at the world class musician level there is some level of genetic and predisposed ability at work, but for the vast majority of people I truly believe that a high level of musicality can be taught and is not something you either "have" or "don't".

...because you're right about what you said above. What happens, is that everyone has the potential to become professional and be taught a certain amount of musicality, and sure, for a person who - heh, doesn't have it - to get an amazing salary in performing or teaching or whatever is quite possible. They just need to work hard and have a good teacher. But to become incredible you would need to work very hard, and to become super incredible you would need incredible talent as well. But...

Ickathu said:
I'm not naturally very good at piano - it's really, really hard for me to do. And I'm pretty terrible at it, but I like it, so I keep playing and I keep improving. Will I ever be as good as Mozart? Probably not, but that's more because I'm not interested in being as good as Mozart.

Exactly. For the majority of the musicians who "have it," they don't want to become as good as Mozart anyway.

Ickathu said:
"Talent" is just an excuse that amateurs use to not improve.

You're quite right and that's one reason why many musicians who "don't have it" are often better (at a lower level) than those who "do have it" because they think that working harder will substitute their lack of "talent."

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not possible for musicians who "don't have it" to learn "it" but that doesn't mean that all musicians that "have it" are better than those who do. After reading cmhardw's and Ickathu's posts, I think there are two type of people who can become "quite amazing." They are:

1. Talented musicians that work decently hard
2. Non-talented musicians that work very hard

These two types of people are seen very much - the main reason being what Ickathu said about talent, and what I said about substituting hard work for talent. I think, for me, that to become quite amazing is enough, because I'm not into performance as much as writing music; but that's a different story. So, we're left with one more kind of musician who becomes incredibly amazing. They are:

Talented musicians that work very (very) hard.

I'm a more-or-less talented musician who doesn't work hard enough, and couldn't care less, to be honest. Like Ickathu, I'm not interested in become as good as Mozart.

sneaklyfox said:
But someone who isn't naturally musical can only get up to a certain level. Beyond that, it's pretty much out of their reach. As a violin and piano teacher, I know there's a big difference between someone who can and someone who can't. For the one who can't, the best I can do is give you my interpretation and coach you on every single little detail I can think of to make you play the way I want.

This is kind of what has happened to my piano teacher. When I don't practise my technical stuff enough, I'm just not ready to put in too much life just yet, because the music I play will become a mess. So each piano lesson becomes this boring session where my piano teacher (a non-talented one, I'm sad to say) is trying to "help" me with "every single little detail [she] can think of" so that my music has life in it. I'll bet that that's what all her teacher did to her because that was "the best [they could] do" and in the same way she tries to help me like that. Sad. Anyway she remains my piano teacher for reason I won't share on these forums...

sneaklyfox said:
And certainly, even for people who aren't terribly musical-minded, it's definitely not an "end-of-story-your-life-as-a-musician-will-either-be-wonderful-or-short-lived" thing. Plenty of professionals are not top notch musical players but have plenty of technique and enough musicality to cut it. They don't really understand the song they're playing very well but make it sound interesting enough. I just wouldn't enjoy listening to them as much as someone else more genuine.

Yep, like what I said before.

Dene said:
Not that I'm an expert, but it sounds to me like you're saying "I expect 'musicality' to be a particular way, and if people don't do it in that particular way I won't accept them".

No...musicality is musicality, and even the quote below that you wrote backfires because...

Dene said:
It reminds me of people that are big into so-called "modern art". It's all bull crap, but these hippies and druggies are all "yeah man I totally feel the expression of inner pain and anxiety expressed in this pile of feces on a board". 99% of people look at it and go "what the hell". The rest say they're "modern artists".

...because the hippies and druggies are an example of those artists who "don't have it," and it's very plain to even a normal person that a poo-board is (probably) not a work of emotional art. But yes, that sort of art is weeeird.

[Ramble complete.]

Dene · Feb 24, 2015

I think you misunderstood what I said. When I said "hippies and druggies" I was specifically referring to people who do modern or contemporary "art".

What I have in mind is crap like this. Another example, a friend of mine recently went to an art exhibition, and one work was apparently a big room that had been covered in cling film. I mean, what is that???! It's certainly not art, and it's definitely not expressing anything to anyone that has a normal sense of reality.

The point I'm trying to make it people have a tendency to try and see something in a work of art (or music) that really isn't there. They then brand it as such (emotive modern art, or musicality), and therefore create a relevance which only truly exists within a small group that accept that relevance. To anybody else, it's nothing special, or just plain stupid.

JemFish · Feb 25, 2015

Dene said:
I think you misunderstood what I said. When I said "hippies and druggies" I was specifically referring to people who do modern or contemporary "art".

What I have in mind is crap like this. Another example, a friend of mine recently went to an art exhibition, and one work was apparently a big room that had been covered in cling film. I mean, what is that???! It's certainly not art, and it's definitely not expressing anything to anyone that has a normal sense of reality.

The point I'm trying to make it people have a tendency to try and see something in a work of art (or music) that really isn't there. They then brand it as such (emotive modern art, or musicality), and therefore create a relevance which only truly exists within a small group that accept that relevance. To anybody else, it's nothing special, or just plain stupid.

Yeah, I guess you're right - people do often "have a tendency to try and see something in a work of art (or music) that really isn't there." But that's not always the case...

Dene · Feb 25, 2015

Not always, of course. But as far as I'm concerned, unless almost every normal person that experiences a piece of artwork (fine arts, music, theatre, whatever) has the same emotive response, there isn't actually anything there.

Roman · Jun 29, 2015

Haven't been following speedcubing news for a while... Did this kid eventially brake some WRs?

Dene · Jun 29, 2015

Heh good question. I doubt he's had the opportunity (lack of competitions) but I'm interested to hear how far along he has come.

Berd · Jun 29, 2015

I'm guessing he had the 'crash' that everyone told him about haha.

Dene · Jun 29, 2015

Berd said:
I'm guessing he had the 'crash' that everyone told him about haha.

Now, now, don't judge. Let him speak.

Iggy · Jul 3, 2015

He posted this in the BLD accomplishment thread some time ago

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...d-Accomplishment-Thread&p=1082721#post1082721

josh42732 · Jul 3, 2015

Iggy said:
He posted this in the BLD accomplishment thread some time ago

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...d-Accomplishment-Thread&p=1082721#post1082721

Wow thanks! Now I can sleep at night!

JemFish · Jul 4, 2015

Berd said:
I'm guessing he had the 'crash' that everyone told him about haha.

Haha...I guess I learnt how NOT to write stupid things and regret them afterwards...the hard way.

So apologies to anyone out there if you were/are annoyed! And apologies to myself for setting unrealistic goals...

My current interests: programming (Java right now), Scrabble, and writing music.

Dene · Jul 4, 2015

JemFish said:
Haha...I guess I learnt how NOT to write stupid things and regret them afterwards...the hard way.

We all learn the hard way

Similar threads	Forum	Replies	Date
Insane scramble! (Definite WR potential)	General Speedcubing Discussion	16	Nov 4, 2023
New Potential Product Announcement!! Is there a market for this?	Puzzle Building, Modding, & Designing	13	Aug 3, 2023
Juggling 3 3x3s as potential future WCA event	General Speedcubing Discussion	26	Mar 30, 2023
3x3 good price- good feel- waste of potential: a broad overview of the forgotten Ms3vl enhanced.	Puzzle Reviews	3	Mar 4, 2023
The 3x3 method that no one is talking about: High Effort, High Potential	General Speedcubing Discussion	7	Jan 16, 2023

Potential Threat to Top BLD Cubers

Member

Member

Member

Member

Premium Member

Member

Member

Premium Member

Member

Premium Member

Member

Premium Member

Member

Premium Member

Member

Premium Member

Member

Member

Member

Premium Member