Johnny Depp - Great Guitarist

khoff999 said:

Well that was just more of your babbling. If you knew that 'taking instructions' (lessons) and practicing were two different things, and you saw me post several times in the thread that long hours of practicing were essential, why did you go through that diatribe about Coltrane's 'wood shedding?' Practicing had nothing to do with my post you quoted. As far as I can see, you are just trying to show off what you think is rare knowledge. But knowing Coltrane practiced his butt off really isn't news to anyone who listens to jazz.

You can pull play the "if you were a music you'd understand" trump card all you want. Everyone can see that is a cheap, dishonest way to have a discussion. I learned where the 9th, 11th, and 13ths of the scales were and what the modes were without spending any time in a music school. I don't know if you really are a good musician or a poser, but what you are not is a clear and concise poster. And I am not the only person in this thread that said that to you.

You also have a terrible understanding of logic. You went on an attack against free jazz and to support your view you posted a video of Sun Ra. Sorry, but one video does not invalidate all of free jazz or even all of Sun Ra's music. I don't know why that's not obvious to you. It actually means nothing at all except that you don't like the video.

And when you said that you liked later Coltrane and it was a "different soup" than free jazz, I asked about his Interstellar Space and Jupiter Variations albums, you didn't have a reply. Nor did you reply to someone who correctly said that "avant garde" and "free jazz" were not "two different soups", but free jazz is a sub-category of avant gard. Didn't they teach you that in music school? You just make these claims and when someone questions you, you either ignore them or say "you wouldn't understand because you're not a musician. How lame.

And I'm especially annoyed that Eva got a poem and I didn't. How about a little Emily Dickenson for me?

Click to expand...

Hi, K,
Well, since you have pursued a personal attack, again, to defend your preposterous remarks about musical performance, you have forced my hand to reply in kind. Sophistry does not replace knowledge. You are obviously not a trained musician and are a dilettante, at best, in regards to music/musicians as evidenced by your remarks. Knowing how to form chords has nothing to do with artistic improvisation, per se, and any fool can learn the intervals. It takes a musician with a commitment to knowledge(formal/informal) to translate them into a voice. So, here's a musical riddle for you: What's the difference between a trumpet and a kazoo? A fool blows a kazoo. And, you, my friend, have taken that instrument to a new and higher level.
Viajero

P.S. And, you seriously studied Literature at the university level and the best you can come up with is Emily Dickinson???????? Well, now I'm totally convinced your artistry is without parallel. Cheers! V

"I actually said that, but what's wrong with Emily Dickinson? She's easily one of the most critically/academically studied/analyzed English-language poets. " Eva

Hi, Eva,
Writers similar to cuisine have their proponents and detractors. So, it's a matter of personal taste. However, my problem with Emily Dickinson, despite her literary "legacy," is that her Weltanschuung is that of a person who spent her entire life in isolation from the real world of people, places, and things . . . the exact opposite of what a good writer needs to give their work substance and credulity. When comparing Emily to Frost, Yeats, Eliot, Bly, Weldon Kees, Creeley, or Lucien Stryk, the chasm is deep and wide. In my opinion, despite her body of work, she must be viewed as a contributor to American Poetry but, with real reservation and, for me, a limited scope.
Viajero

P.S. Thank you for keeping our discussions on a higher level.
V

Viajero said:

Hi, Eva,
Writers similar to cuisine have their proponents and detractors. So, it's a matter of personal taste. However, my problem with Emily Dickinson, despite her literary "legacy," is that her Weltanschuung is that of a person who spent her entire life in isolation from the real world of people, places, and things . . . the exact opposite of what a good writer needs to give their work substance and credulity. When comparing Emily to Frost, Yeats, Eliot, Bly, Weldon Kees, Creeley, or Lucien Stryk, the chasm is deep and wide. In my opinion, despite her body of work, she must be viewed as a contributor to American Poetry but, with real reservation and, for me, a limited scope.
Viajero

P.S. Thank you for keeping our discussions on a higher level.
V

Click to expand...

Dickinson may not have been as "worldly" as someone like Byron who had the wealth and privilege of traveling all over the world, but her reputation as an isolated hermit is a bit exaggerated. She actually travelled some and was active in her local community for most of her life until her late-30s (she only lived to 55); but she always had close friends and acquaintances as is clear from her copious letters. I'm also not at all convinced that the kind of experience you describe is necessary for writing great literature, especially poetry which tends to be more imaginative, introspective, and intimate than prose fiction. What makes great poetry is a mastery and imaginative use of language and form, which Dickinson had in spades. I'm also not convinced that just by reading Dickinson and, say, Yeats or Eliot that you could tell which authors were more/less worldly. They all wrote highly imaginative poetry predominantly disconnected from the world around them. Certainly in terms of influence and innovation Dickinson would rank much higher than Bly, Kees, Creeley, or Stryk. You can have your "reservations" all you want but Dickinson is one of the major poetic voices of the last 150 years who arguably prefigured the elliptical style and philosophical depth of the modernists more so than any 19th century poet.

"I'm also not at all convinced that the kind of experience you describe is necessary for writing great literature, especially poetry which tends to be more imaginative, introspective, and intimate than prose fiction. " Eva

Hi, Eva,
Well, I couldn't disagree more with your concept of a writer so let me share with you the story of the Old Sea Captain:
A lovely young couple in 18th-century America wanted to travel to Europe to visit their families. Two ships were available for the potentially dangerous late Fall Atlantic crossing. The first one was captained by a very handsome man who had studied at the greatest maritime colleges, was an expert at celestial navigation, and set a very nice table for his special guests. However, although he had some "coastal passages" to his resume, he had never crossed the North Atlantic . . . especially in Fall with the prospect of severe Autumnal gales. The second captain was a salty curmudgeon who was a hard drinker, swore frequently at his crew and passengers but had crossed the North Atlantic in Autumn over 200 times. He was credited with saving his ship on many occasions in offshore gales with his superb seamanship and always brought his passengers to their destinations safe and sound. Who would you choose to make the passage?

"I'm also not at all convinced that the kind of experience you describe is necessary for writing great literature, especially poetry which tends to be more imaginative, introspective, and intimate than prose fiction " and " They all wrote highly imaginative poetry predominantly disconnected from the world around them. " Eva

So, Eva,
Are you saying that the writer's experience in life is not as important as his creativity . . ., especially in Poetry? You can't separate one from the other. It's a package deal. How can a writer's work have veracity if they are "disconnected" from the real-life experience and live in a shallow perception of the nature of being and human consciousness? The great writers over the last two millennia all shared one important thing: knowledge of their visceral world and their ontological connection to it. Creativity is not enough to make a complete package. To me, it smacks of a well-honed dilettante.

Finally, liking or disliking an artist is a very personal thing. It sheds light on the reader as an affirmation of how they perceive Art and Reality in a most intimate way and how they perceive what is good in "Art.". At some level, there's really no positive or negative . . . just personal taste. So, I could never read Melville but I love Conrad. Dickinson was always unreadable but I love Eliot. Just two different ways to look at the creative process and the world.
Viajero

Viajero said:

Hi, Eva,
Well, I couldn't disagree more with your concept of a writer so let me share with you the story of the Old Sea Captain:
A lovely young couple in 18th-century America wanted to travel to Europe to visit their families. Two ships were available for the potentially dangerous late Fall Atlantic crossing. The first one was captained by a very handsome man who had studied at the greatest maritime colleges, was an expert at celestial navigation, and set a very nice table for his special guests. However, although he had some "coastal passages" to his resume, he had never crossed the North Atlantic . . . especially in Fall with the prospect of severe Autumnal gales. The second captain was a salty curmudgeon who was a hard drinker, swore frequently at his crew and passengers but had crossed the North Atlantic in Autumn over 200 times. He was credited with saving his ship on many occasions in offshore gales with his superb seamanship and always brought his passengers to their destinations safe and sound. Who would you choose to make the passage?

Click to expand...

Obviously you choose the person with experience, but poetry is not experience; it's language and form used in order to evoke experience, which may or may not be those of the actual poet. The actual art is in the rendering, not the source material that inspires it. I think if you started looking at any number of the best poems ever written you'd be hard pressed to say what experience the poet must've had in order to write that, or even to what extent the experience matters in what makes it a great poem. If we were to create a 1:1 with your captain analogy, then the first captain would be like a young student who hasn't spent much time writing poetry, but has spent much time reading poetry and studying poems/poets; while the latter captain would be someone who'd spent most of their life successfully writing poetry.

Viajero said:

Are you saying that the writer's experience in life is not as important as his creativity . . ., especially in Poetry? You can't separate one from the other. It's a package deal. How can a writer's work have veracity if they are "disconnected" from the real-life experience and live in a shallow perception of the nature of being and human consciousness? The great writers over the last two millennia all shared one important thing: knowledge of their visceral world and their ontological connection to it. Creativity is not enough to make a complete package. To me, it smacks of a well-honed dilettante.

Click to expand...

Absolutely I'm saying that, and the notion that you can't separate experience from the art/craft of poetry is absurd, and I'm guessing every single poet would tell you as much.

As for veracity, first of all it's only important to the extent that realism is a concern, and that is not the case in all poetry or literature in general. In fact, the "tyranny of realism" is mostly a 20th century invention thanks to the invention of the psychological novel. An author like Dickens had little concern for realism, and was no worse for it. Second, even if you do value veracity the notion that the only way you can achieve it is via experience is incredibly dubious. You can just as easily achieve it by having read other literature and copying the elements that you think lend veracity to the work. Often veracity requires nothing more than the invention of details. It's entirely possible to imagine things that do not exist, but describe them in such detail that someone would believe they did. There is a bias in human psychology that when someone provides more details we tend to believe them more.

I also don't know what makes you think that a lack of experience leads to a "shallow perception of the nature of being and human consciousness." Human consciousness is directly perceptible to anyone with a mind, and as long as we live with/around others (as Dickinson did) we will also always be able to observe how people are and behave. It seems to me what would make for a deep perception of either would be one's powers of observational awareness. Not just thinking, but being aware of thinking and how thought works; not just being with others, but being aware of how act/behave. When Dickinson writes:

"Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —"

that seems an incredibly perceptive aphorism about the nature of how people react to and best appreciate the truth. Now, of course Dickinson wasn't the first to state that. Shakespeare said it in Hamlet:

"Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out..."

And Pope:

"'Tis not enough, your counsel still be true;
Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do;
Men must be taught as if you taught them not;
And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
Without good breeding, truth is disapprov'd;
That only makes superior sense belov'd."

So it seems pretty clear to me that either this experience is so common that anyone can have it, or merely reading other poetry would be enough to make you realize it. Either way, Dickinson's rendering is just as good as Shakespeare's or Pope's, especially in the way she develops the light/lightning metaphor throughout.

Viajero said:

Finally, liking or disliking an artist is a very personal thing. It sheds light on the reader as an affirmation of how they perceive Art and Reality in a most intimate way and how they perceive what is good in "Art.". At some level, there's really no positive or negative . . . just personal taste. So, I could never read Melville but I love Conrad. Dickinson was always unreadable but I love Eliot. Just two different ways to look at the creative process and the world.
Viajero

Click to expand...

I do agree with all this. I was never much of an Eliot guy myself. At least as far as the modernists go I'd take Stevens any day.

Eva Yojimbo said:

Obviously you choose the person with experience, but poetry is not experience; it's language and form used in order to evoke experience, which may or may not be those of the actual poet. The actual art is in the rendering, not the source material that inspires it. I think if you started looking at any number of the best poems ever written you'd be hard pressed to say what experience the poet must've had in order to write that, or even to what extent the experience matters in what makes it a great poem. If we were to create a 1:1 with your captain analogy, then the first captain would be like a young student who hasn't spent much time writing poetry, but has spent much time reading poetry and studying poems/poets; while the latter captain would be someone who'd spent most of their life successfully writing poetry.

Absolutely I'm saying that, and the notion that you can't separate experience from the art/craft of poetry is absurd, and I'm guessing every single poet would tell you as much.

As for veracity, first of all it's only important to the extent that realism is a concern, and that is not the case in all poetry or literature in general. In fact, the "tyranny of realism" is mostly a 20th century invention thanks to the invention of the psychological novel. An author like Dickens had little concern for realism, and was no worse for it. Second, even if you do value veracity the notion that the only way you can achieve it is via experience is incredibly dubious. You can just as easily achieve it by having read other literature and copying the elements that you think lend veracity to the work. Often veracity requires nothing more than the invention of details. It's entirely possible to imagine things that do not exist, but describe them in such detail that someone would believe they did. There is a bias in human psychology that when someone provides more details we tend to believe them more.

I also don't know what makes you think that a lack of experience leads to a "shallow perception of the nature of being and human consciousness." Human consciousness is directly perceptible to anyone with a mind, and as long as we live with/around others (as Dickinson did) we will also always be able to observe how people are and behave. It seems to me what would make for a deep perception of either would be one's powers of observational awareness. Not just thinking, but being aware of thinking and how thought works; not just being with others, but being aware of how act/behave. When Dickinson writes:

"Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —"

that seems an incredibly perceptive aphorism about the nature of how people react to and best appreciate the truth. Now, of course Dickinson wasn't the first to state that. Shakespeare said it in Hamlet:

"Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out..."

And Pope:

"'Tis not enough, your counsel still be true;
Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do;
Men must be taught as if you taught them not;
And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
Without good breeding, truth is disapprov'd;
That only makes superior sense belov'd."

So it seems pretty clear to me that either this experience is so common that anyone can have it, or merely reading other poetry would be enough to make you realize it. Either way, Dickinson's rendering is just as good as Shakespeare's or Pope's, especially in the way she develops the light/lightning metaphor throughout.

I do agree with all this. I was never much of an Eliot guy myself. At least as far as the modernists go I'd take Stevens any day.

Click to expand...

Hi, Eva,
Well, I think we've fleshed this topic out into two camps and let the reader decide where his/her sentiments fall. We agree to disagree and have done so in a civil manner. However, I would like to suggest two outstanding works of Fiction that deal with the artistic experience. The first is the novella "Tonio Kreuger" written by Thomas Mann which is a Bildungsroman that details the life of a young artist in the making written by Mann in his twenties and, secondly, a labrynthic novel of extreme perception and beauty--"Jean Christophe" by Romain Rolland that is said, by scholars, to be a novel about the life of Beethoven. So, for the record: an artist must have both inspiration--ideas generated from his/her genetic creativity and personal experiences in life, and perspiration--the physical act of creation whether the artist be a musician, poet/novelist, or visual artist. However, for me, the inspiration lacks credulity when emanating from the imagination alone . . . bereft of real life experiences needed to validate the veracity of the human condition. . . as opposed to the biblical tale of Saul's enlightenment on the Road to Damascus where the road represented his personal journey(perspiration) and his enlightenment by Jesus(inspiration).
Viajero

Viajero said:

However, I would like to suggest two outstanding works of Fiction that deal with the artistic experience. The first is the novella "Tonio Kreuger" written by Thomas Mann which is a Bildungsroman that details the life of a young artist in the making written by Mann in his twenties and, secondly, a labrynthic novel of extreme perception and beauty--"Jean Christophe" by Romain Rolland that is said, by scholars, to be a novel about the life of Beethoven. So, for the record: an artist must have both inspiration--ideas generated from his/her genetic creativity and personal experiences in life, and perspiration--the physical act of creation whether the artist be a musician, poet/novelist, or visual artist.

Click to expand...

Another failure of logic... two examples does not show that an artist must have both, any more than pointing at two black swans means all swans must be black. Even if you showed that no one ever created art without both it would not prove that an artist must have both. All you could say at that point is "so far, no one has produced art without both". But your argument falls very short of even that.

However, for me, the inspiration lacks credulity when emanating from the imagination alone . . . bereft of real life experiences needed to validate the veracity of the human condition. . . as opposed to the biblical tale of Saul's enlightenment on the Road to Damascus where the road represented his personal journey(perspiration) and his enlightenment by Jesus(inspiration).

Click to expand...

I don't see where Eva said that Dickinson didn't have life experiences. He spoke of her traveling some and many correspondences. So this isn't convincing. How did that disappear from the conversation?

So let's compare Dickinson with J.S. Bach. What great real life experiences did he have that "validate the veracity of human condition" (or wasn't Bach a real artist?). He didn't travel far, was mainly a hard working employee and a family man. As far as I know, he created his art from his worldly knowledge he got from reading, conversations he had with people, and was mostly inspired by his Lutheranism. But as far as I know he didn't run into Jesus on any road, not even on his trip to Lubeck to meet Buxtehude.

Dickinson came from a very educated and influential family, spent seven years at Amherst academy, taking classes in English and classical literature, Latin, botany, geology, history, "mental philosophy," and arithmetic. She was deeply affected by the deaths of people she was close to, and, for a time, was very moved by religion.

So I am not seeing how Bach's life experiences were enough to make him a great artist and Dickinson's were not. Can you make it clear what you are talking about?

Viajero said:

Hi, Eva,
Well, I think we've fleshed this topic out into two camps and let the reader decide where his/her sentiments fall. We agree to disagree and have done so in a civil manner. However, I would like to suggest two outstanding works of Fiction that deal with the artistic experience. The first is the novella "Tonio Kreuger" written by Thomas Mann which is a Bildungsroman that details the life of a young artist in the making written by Mann in his twenties and, secondly, a labrynthic novel of extreme perception and beauty--"Jean Christophe" by Romain Rolland that is said, by scholars, to be a novel about the life of Beethoven. So, for the record: an artist must have both inspiration--ideas generated from his/her genetic creativity and personal experiences in life, and perspiration--the physical act of creation whether the artist be a musician, poet/novelist, or visual artist. However, for me, the inspiration lacks credulity when emanating from the imagination alone . . . bereft of real life experiences needed to validate the veracity of the human condition. . . as opposed to the biblical tale of Saul's enlightenment on the Road to Damascus where the road represented his personal journey(perspiration) and his enlightenment by Jesus(inspiration).
Viajero

Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I just read my first Mann (Buddenbrooks) late last year and loved it, so I do plan on reading more from him soon. I haven't heard of Jean Christophe but I'll add it to my list.

Yes, artists need inspiration, but inspiration can come from anywhere, especially for poetry which, again, is notorious for being more intimate, introspective, reflective, etc. One could never go further than their own home and still find plenty of things to write about. In fact, back when I was studying poetry one of the study prompts was to write a poem based on an everyday item you'd encounter in your home (I wrote about my rocking chair). As the saying goes, art is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, and that 90% includes all the time and effort one must put into learning the craft, which is so much more of a focus than whatever the inspiration is. No inspiration teaches one how to write in order to render that inspiration most effectively.

I also don't know what experiences you think Dickinson was lacking to prevent her from writing inspired poetry. I also don't know what experiences you think someone like Eliot (whom you've expressed some admiration for) must've had in order to write Prufrock, The Wasteland, the Four Quartets, etc. Those works are as much a product of imagination rather than experience than anything Dickinson wrote. I mean, when I think of poetry that couldn't have been written about experience the only examples that come to mind are those written explicitly about a specific place, like Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey, or Byron's Child Harold's Pilgrimage for two examples.

You've also given no examples of poetry or literature lacking in credulity because of a lack of experience, or those that have credulity because of experience; you've just assumed that must be the case. I mean, did Eliot actually see an evening stretched out across the sky like a patient etherized upon a table, or is that just a metaphor that occurred to his imagination? How in the world could you tell the difference? Did he actually hear/see women in rooms talking of Michaelangelo? I would love for you to actually analyze an Eliot poem and point to what experiences you think he must've had in order to write any of his highly imaginative lines.

"did Eliot actually see an evening stretched out across the sky like a patient etherized upon a table, or is that just a metaphor that occurred to his imagination? How in the world could you tell the difference? Did he actually hear/see women in rooms talking of Michaelangelo? I would love for you to actually analyze an Eliot poem and point to what experiences you think he must've had in order to write any of his highly imaginative lines. " Eva

Hi Eva,
Well, how do we know? However, metaphors are a result of a writer's creative perception of the world through his eyes. We judge this creativity based on our personal experiences and taste juxtaposed against a vast body of Literature that precedes any work. However, these highly subjective opinions create much discord among academics and readers alike both praising and demeaning extant works of Art.
So, when I read a novel, poem, view visual Art, or listen to music, I begin with an immediate impression which is either to like the piece or not. I'm rarely lukewarm. And, the reason I like a piece is that it triggers an intellectual/emotional response through the creative process that validates my views of reality and Art. When Hemingway writes about the experiences of Santiago the fisherman in the "Old Man and the Sea" he describes the angst of an old fisherman who is fighting a physical and spiritual battle for the conquest of Nature(the fish) as sharks tear at his prize's flesh as he attempts to bring it home--a powerful metaphor of Life. And, in Hemingway's outstanding depiction of the event, the reality of his knowledge of Man, fishing, and the sea cannot be dismissed as mere creativity or transcendental inspiration from the gods but rather a creative retelling through Fiction of his own past experiences through the words of a writer who has lived life. And, when you read Hemingway, his honesty is apparent in all of his writings. Its the stuff of meat and potatoes.
So(am I using this opening too much??), once again, we are left with how we as individual human beings perceive a work of Art. And, although I was force-fed Dickinson in numerous American Literature classes in my younger years, there was nothing in her writing that ever caused me to return. It was empty and lacked depth for me.
Finally, I have a good friend who is Russian and has traveled the world widely. We share a love of good Vodka and caviar. However, he eats his on white bread with butter. I prefer a dry cracker. Amazingly, we are still friends.
Viajero