#2

concert and sir's qualities, by dad - an experimental art - the importance of letting people learn for themselves - lute - limitations of the guitar

I recently went for a concert, chiefly because my teacher was to perform there. It was not, however, a traditional performance, but a concert of experimental art. The first two parts, which were all I could see of a total of five, were simple but different in the premise - classical music fused with visual, in this case video.

The musicians were situated in the center of the stage. Two projector screens on stands were on their left and right, onto which came the visual element.

The first was an extremely energetic Indian classical performance on the sitar, sarod (I think) and tabla, accompanied by similarly frenetic visuals, all full of life and movement, like rain. It seemed to convey a starting, and the process of creation, interaction and destruction (that's what I scribbled while watching) on different levels, from minute to human-life-size, and also incorporated a realistically shown journey through video, superimposed with abstractly depicted progress (symbolized, IMO, by EQ-visualisation-style lines which moved with the vibrant pulse of the music).

 The second was my teacher, performing solo guitar - western classical. A much more slow paced setup, around five pieces, and the visuals take a more realistic animated turn. Claymation and modern 2D animation is what I recall as of now. Unimpressive; throughout the performance, I sat with eager ears, listening for compositional ideas and phrases which would excite, but in vain. Nothing lacking on sir's part, however - the general 'slow and soothing' pieces have somehow lost their appeal for me.

I found the performance overall to be what was promised - an experiment. I feel it to be a medium which can still be developed and matured further, and requiring a higher amount of integration between the two elements. Dad, by and large, felt it to be a field with a weak conceptual foundation, but that's besides the point.

Disagreements will remain, but that's not the point either.

He said that my teacher had on him an expression of utmost calm, innocence, and simplicity, which contributed to him getting more audience attention (in his opinion).

I had never really noticed this. The fact that I had met him just twice till then is bunk, not even worth mentioning - this was the first time Dad saw him at all.

But I digress. Dad spoke to me at length and described how these qualities can be the best I can learn from him. I couldn't agree more, so you could say all is good. But...

Why couldn't he let me find it out for myself?

Whatever happened to independence, the joy of learning, the process of discovery? Would it really be that bad if I had found it out myself, given a few months? In his saying, I lost out an avenue of achievement. And the achievement itself lost worth for me. Would one set out to discover what has already been propounded and solidified? Unless one wants to prove it wrong, and has been sufficiently challenged to do it, I doubt the person's inner fire will burn for the task.

Anything that has been done, loses it's novelty for me instantly. That, perhaps, could be my personal shortcoming, and maybe the reason why I don't like most of the music I hear, most of the paintings I see, most of the literature I read - there always seems to be something missing, something not quite there.

---

I was looking around at the lute for a long time. First I confused it for a Baroque/Renaissance guitar. I like those things - they're small and portable. Anyway, I was transcribing a well-known piano piece for solo guitar, and that old nagging of the guitar's general limitations came to mind.

After good sound quality, I like the following things in an instrument. The guitar comes the closest to them, I guess, but not quite.

-Portability - It's more portable than it's more polyphonic cousin, the piano, but still, its quite big to carry around. A violin is more portable! >.>

-Polyphony - Here comes the envy I have held for the pianists - and more so the organists - ever since I started music. The ability of a single person and a single instrument to sound like a whole ensemble is something I never really knew much about before joining classical guitar - which I did while ignorantly thinking that it'd better my contemporary technique, and eventually moving to it full time - but have acquired a taste for it ever since, to the extent that if I play, I must play
polyphonically. The concept of ensemble playing, with each person playing something that sounds incomplete without the others, is conceptually illogical to me. I suppose they must have their reasons. But the two instruments I play - classical guitar and touchstyle electric - had to have this capability, and have it well.

Unfortunately, they do not fulfill the second criterion. We are woefully limited in our range with the six strings. A seventh adds just a little, an eighth perhaps could be a significant advantage. To top it all, I don't even know the limit, nor do guitarists across the world - I sure don't want it to evolve beyond a guitar, like a Megatar or a Warr guitar. Perhaps 6-8 strings combined with a special tuning could be the silver bullet. One that gets the low strings really low, and the high strings as they are - high.

Anyway, so I thought that the lute was a viable evolution of the guitar (first I thought it was the touchstyle electric guitar, but nah, that hardly compares). Smaller size, more strings, guitar-like basis for sound (though the right hand technique, as I found out, was completely different), and I recall Narcisco Yepes getting a 10 string classical guitar made for transcribing lute pieces without losing the bass. I saw a video of Paul O'Dette among others. And the result - the lute just doesn't sound as full in the treble as a guitar!

Disappointing. And thus...I go back to the guitar.

See you folks at the next post.
/CGKnight