Phil Angus wrote: > This was all very interesting but did you really need to post it 9 > times!! > :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kool Musick [mailto:koolmusick@...] Only got that one once here Dave Eager

That's interesting! Anyone else have this message from Kool Musick 9 times? -----Original Message----- From: koolmusick@... [mailto:koolmusick@...] Sent: 27 June 2001 23:03 To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com Subject: [L-OT] (Onwards from) Re: guitar gods --- In logic-ot@y..., "Phil Angus" <phil.angus@b...> wrote: > This was all very interesting > but did you really need to post it 9 times!! I did not post anything 9 times. And nor are 9 posts from me showing on the web site. Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> That's interesting! Anyone else have this message from Kool Musick 9 times? Not me. Same with the message from betasonic on the LUG, only appeared once even if Joeri was complaining. Sascha

I have a G4/450 which has 2 USB ports. One port has the Apple Pro Keyboard connected (with a mouse and Logic dongle connected) and the other USB port has an emagic AMT8. If I want to connect anymore USB devices (cradle for Palm Pilot or Handspring) I need a USB hub. Apple discourages putting a hub on the port where the keyboard is, but I'm wondering if putting a USB hub where the AMT8 is would effect midi timing? Thanks, Mark

At 11:37 PM +0000 6/27/01, Mark_L_Holloway@... wrote: >I have a G4/450 which has 2 USB ports. One port has the Apple Pro >Keyboard connected (with a mouse and Logic dongle connected) and the >other USB port has an emagic AMT8. If I want to connect anymore USB >devices (cradle for Palm Pilot or Handspring) I need a USB hub. >Apple discourages putting a hub on the port where the keyboard is, >but I'm wondering if putting a USB hub where the AMT8 is would effect >midi timing? I have a hub on the port my Mac keyboard is on and there are no problems. -- Dennis Gunn Mightyjohn@... check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" info at http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

At 11:48 AM -0400 6/27/01, GAmoore@... wrote: >Why don't we drop this competition in music is bad/good thing. Clearly to >either extreme its bad, but in mild, indirect doses it spurs on progress >in music and science, etc. > > >>Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive >>attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and >>derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few >>days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational >>TV so I guess he is finished with this thread. > >There are great musicians who can get any sound, and there are those who >create entirely new sounds. Both types of people are needed in the world. >So both of you are missing the other's point. > And you are missing my sarcasm but since you have never heard me play I would expect that. About half of the bands I play in play improvisational and or experimental music. I am *not* the most proficient player in (this highly competitive) town but when people want something *they* think is noisy and weird I am among the ones they call. The artist whose album I am working on right now is a Woman named Phew who (like me) was part of the beginnings of the Punk/Japan Noise movement in the 80's. By the way I find learning things note for note one of the best possible ways there is to train your ear and a good ear is absolutely essential for improvisation and collaboration. So paradoxically if you want to do something original being good at copying is a very valuable skill. -- Dennis Gunn Mightyjohn@... check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" info at http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Gunn" <mightyjohn@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:45 AM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > >Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > > > > > From: Dennis Gunn <mightyjohn@...> > > > > >You see competition as a negative thing. Wrong. > > > > > >Without it we would never get anywhere. > > > > Hogwash...... I've come realize (in my later years :-) that the above > > attitude is actually a dead end street. There are many fine places one can go > > sans a competitive outlook. > > Sure, but the top of a given field is not usually one of them. > > > > Yeah, and what a commercial, slick and shallow world it's become. > > (generally speaking) > > As opposed to...? ummm, as opposed to not being that way? while I am fairly pessimistic I'd rather strive for utopia than accept dystopia. I think many reasonable people believe the world has become more commerical, slick, and shallow. I'm actually not one of them - I think things have gotten better, in large part because people are free to compete - but I can intuitively grasp his point - it's a fairly straight-forward one, one could even say commonly-held. > > > From: Kool Musick <koolmusick@...> > > > >Guitarists are competitive. They strive to inspire each other and outdo > > >each other. 'To compete' -- to strive consciously or unconsciously for an > > >objective. > > > > To outdo each other...? c'mon Kool man, this reads like a bad movie script. > > The type of competition that's based of ego completely destroys the music > > for me. I play in a guitar quartet, when we're competing we generally > > suck bad, the idea is to play for something bigger than oneself. > > > > Hmmm.. that sounds like a bad movie script too! > > > > howard > > > You have raised an strong objection but have put forth no logic to > support it. I wouldn't say that. I think he used a real-life example which is a form of logic in support of his argument. Before you nit-pick, you didn't seem to want to take the time to address some of the logic I employed, including a dictionary definition and such, instead you chose a single thread of my argument so I'm not sure you should throw around that sort of "dig". I don't expect you (or me or Howard) to address everything and create a real paper on this subject - but as long as people have made some attempt I think you're being deliberately unfair in attempting to inflict that subtle insult. > You (and Wilson Zorn as well) basically seem to take > issue with the idea of competition as a productive motivation No, I don't believe I said that. What I said was that NOT EVERYONE COMPETES when playing music. I went on to say that frequently that sense of competition is destructive. And I pointed out that it also can be very productive. Being an avowed capitalist, I actually believe it's quite productive and important. But it is not for all musicians. Many do not compete. Many people in many fields do not compete and a rare few still manage to make their mark on the landscape of time. > and as > such of no interest to you and yet you have absolutely nothing to > gain from your objections but the (as of yet un-obtained) > satisfaction of seeing your ideas prevail over mine. In other words > you are taking a position in a debate which you presumably hope to > win, but who's outcome is of no consequence beyond the mutual > amusement we share in pitting our ideas against each other, and yet > the very position you are taking is an attempt to deny your interest > the concept of competition. > Well, oddly enough, I thought we were expressing our viewpoints. I don't know how yours or my ideas will "prevail"? I certainly don't expect that anyone's minds will change. I do hope that it will stimulate further thought but at least I'll have the satisfaction of having expressed myself against something I think is wrong. However, even if we're in competition and my attempt is to gain favor with the audience here, what does this have to do with talking about the role of competition in music? You could if you wanted to demonstrate that every listserv is intrinsically a competitive forum and if you wish to make that point and draw it as an analogy, fine. But I would add that I did not say I was non-competitive in all fields - I am very competitive in some areas. > Is that irony or what? I guess it's "or what?" > > At 6:54 AM +0000 6/26/01,Wilson Zorn wrote: > >I don't see Einstein as in competition with > >Newton - or in his case even his peers, at least in terms of seeking a prize > >or seeking something exclusive. Some scientists have been in competition > >with others in that fashion, both in ways I see as good and ways I see as > >bad. Sagan went out of his way to demerit peers and politic ceaselessly, in > >my opinion eroding good science, wasting time, and just plain being a jerk. > >On the other hand, while Gallo may have made many mistakes, his clearly > >competitive spirit has not impaired in my opinion good science and sharing > >of information. And another contemporary scientists, E. O. Wilson, has not > >exhibited a competitive spirit in the scientific pursuits, working closely > >in all sorts of collaborations and sharing research as freely as academia > >permits. > > Wrong tack to take. Competition pervades almost every aspect > scientific endeavor. For example if someone wants to use a particle > accelerator or big telescope for something they are working on they > have to compete in order to earn time on the machine. The > competition entails submitting their theories and abstract of the > experiment to a review board who will then compare it to other > competing projects and on the basis of relative merit give it a yes > or no and/or assign it priority. > Good point. However, some scientists are not fueled by a competitive spirit and instead submit work that, once in a fortunate great while, is reviewed on its own merit and nearly-miraculously suceeds on that basis. Gee guess what - I knew one of them! In any case competition of course pervades - but I think we were addressing individual behavior, not systemic mechanisms or cultural values. > Even if a scientist somehow completes a paper without ever competing > for funds to do the research, upon publication the paper is submitted > to peer review, AKA "the shoot out" in which scientists with > competing theories attempt to knock it down with their own ideas. It > is an intense competition whose ultimate prize is the right to claim > to posterity to have been the one to have discovered or contributed > to the discovery of a fundamental truth. The process whether you > think it's "good" or not is one of the fundamental building blocks of > modern science and Einstein was very much a participant. > Again, I think that's a good point but there are still those who do not "compete" in these forums and simply respond. Failing to compete does indeed frequently cause well-reasoned essentially correct theses to flounder although in theory (and only in theory) a sound notion will not fail just due to being challenged - since in theory it will be evaluated on that factual basis. And on rare occassion peer review has savaged scientists whose ideas it turned out later were in fact correct. Regardless, some of these scientists simply aren't competitive but are disciplined enough to follow a process. The really smart ones sometimes get heard. > Furthermore competition does not preclude cooperation with your > competitors. It's particularly true in the sciences. Thanks for repeating what I said above, re Gallo. Strangely it almost sounds like you're saying I didn't say this and it's your idea, but I must be misreading. > It's even true > in sports. As I mentioned earlier I play racquetball and one of the > interesting and more difficult aspects of the sport is the degree of > high speed cooperation it takes to clear the way for your opponent to > take his shot and to keep from hurting each other when you are > hitting a ball 300 kmh inside a 12 X 6 X 6 meter room. Competitors > in all fields often train the very people who end up beating them at > some point and usually they are proud of it. But then I guess pride > is supposed to be bad too. I'm sick of you twisting - I NEVER SAID COMPETITION WAS INHERENTLY BAD. In fact I was directly quoted above as saying it can be both good and band. Since you're replying to my specific thread I can only assume the comment is aimed towards my comments. Let me say what I said AGAIN for your benefit: my first post on competiton - "Hmmm, I think that the whole virtuoso machismo "I'm-better-than-you" mentality is what has turned me off to a lot of mainstream guitarists, particularly the flashy ones." then second post - "However, I'm not really sure everyone is competing depending on how broadly or narrowly you define "compete"." other comments centered around the fact that not everyone is competing in my opinion - of course unlike you, I don't "know" this > > > Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive > attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and > derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few > days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational > TV so I guess he is finished with this thread. > > It's been fun and thanks y'all. No, it hasn't. Primarily due to undue extrapolations, deliberate misinterpretations, and arrogance ("I *know*"). I usually don't bother with these threads - as most people know since I'm an unfamiliar quantity despite having been "lurking" for some time. This is why. Unfortunately I've allowed myself to be provoked into attempting to ensure some accuracy in the portrayal of my opinions. Now I'll shut up for real (despite admittedly having said I would earlier - sorry to the bored/annoyed people). > -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Eager" <oink@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > > > Dennis Gunn wrote: > > > Furthermore competition does not preclude cooperation with your > > competitors. > > Healthy co-operative competition has been an integral part of music > since time began. Trading fours is a good example. > > Dammit, if we're all really honest with ourselves, we're in the > business of 'look at me , not them' . Otherwise we'd just hang a plain > shingle outside our doors saying 'musician' and wait for whomever think > they need us, to knock. I'm GENUINELY not asking this to debate your point since I've certainly made mine by now, perhaps too forcefully - however, I'm genuinely asking don't you (all, not just Mr. Eager) know musicians like this? People who only get involved in bands because they like to play and know somebody and basically never seek out gigs or other bands? They just play for fun and the fact that they can't stop playing anyway. > And if we got the word there were more musicians > than gigs, we'd pack up and take up macrame or something instead.[as if > !!] > > Dave Eager > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >

Hey, on the topic of great guitarists, I think no one named Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine, whom I'd name mainly from a textural and compositional standpoint. Really amazing, and I can't believe I forgot to mention him - if someone else did, I apologize for the repeat. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Matthews" <Groovey@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [L-OT] Re: Guitarists. > Hi to Grey......er that must've been a slip on the keyboard..he he he, sorry > if it offended dude- we are all pals here, are we not? > > I was replying or attempting to reply in the same light hearted humourous > way you did with the 50 yr old sad teenagers, I laughed at that.....I would > be genuinely interested in hearing something of your playing and songs- as > indeed some of the others who's names crop up regularly here. I do enjoy > chatting about guitar, retentive it may be, but well......so what, who > really gives a....? > > On the other hand- how DOES the riff to All right now and solo really > go?????? :-) OK enough of that! you could have a point. > > Grey- do you have a link to a Real audio or MP3 we can listen to? I'd be > interested to hear what other guitarists on the list are creating with > Logic. When I firts joined the list, I thought that everyone else must be a > keyboard bashing techno- head (not that there is anything wrong with that of > course) and was relieved to discover there are indeed other six string > slingers who use Logic + computers to good effect. > > Cheers > > John > > Groovey Band website mail to : > chickenjohn@... > http://www.grooveyband.co.uk/ > East Kent Morris Minor Club web site or ; john@... > http://www.ekmm.co.uk > Shake The Snake web site (other band) or ; john@... > http://www.shakethesnake.co.uk > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: greydug <greydug@...> > To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: 27 June 2001 11:35 > Subject: [L-OT] Re: Guitarists. > > > > To Hendrik Jan, Dennis Gunn, Yoonchi, Per Boysen, Phil Angus, and John > > Matthews. > > > > It seems that Barb the Beat-Girl is not the only one to get challenged on > > the logic-list, notwithstanding the fact that she has helped an enormous > > amount of people, as has Hendrik Jan and all of you. When you start > > comparing Guitarists and guitar solos, it becomes pointless, like saying > > that Jimi Hendrix was better than Jerry Garcia because more people copy > him. > > Both, in my HUMBLE OPNINION have given much pleasure to enormous amounts > of > > people, as have all the other guitarists that have been mentioned. This > rant > > was mainly concerned with the thread of the voicings of Paul Kossof's > guitar > > part to "All Right Now", which was developing into an anally-obsessive > > comparison. > > > > a personal aside to John Matthews.....I don't like being referred to as > > "greydung". My name is Graeme Douglas. If you have something else to say > to > > me about my technical expertise as a guitarist, or my songwriting > > credentials, then I am happy to respond to you in private > > > > What started off as a light-hearted jest about the amount of feeling that > > some of you have about criticism of your favourite guitarists has become > > bitter. I apologize unreservedly to anyone to whom I've, inadvertedly, > > offended. > > > > Graeme Douglas > > (Best -known song: "Do anything you wanna do" Eddie and the Hot Rods 1977) > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >

Given the last comments I made, I'd like to at least state for the record I totally agreed with Dennis' point below re copying/learning. (and I bet you thought this would be something completely different...) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Gunn" <mightyjohn@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 5:54 PM Subject: Re: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > At 11:48 AM -0400 6/27/01, GAmoore@... wrote: > >Why don't we drop this competition in music is bad/good thing. Clearly to > >either extreme its bad, but in mild, indirect doses it spurs on progress > >in music and science, etc. > > > > > >>Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive > >>attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and > >>derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few > >>days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational > >>TV so I guess he is finished with this thread. > > > >There are great musicians who can get any sound, and there are those who > >create entirely new sounds. Both types of people are needed in the world. > >So both of you are missing the other's point. > > > > And you are missing my sarcasm but since you have never heard me play > I would expect that. About half of the bands I play in play > improvisational and or experimental music. I am *not* the most > proficient player in (this highly competitive) town but when people > want something *they* think is noisy and weird I am among the ones > they call. The artist whose album I am working on right now is a > Woman named Phew who (like me) was part of the beginnings of the > Punk/Japan Noise movement in the 80's. > > By the way I find learning things note for note one of the best > possible ways there is to train your ear and a good ear is absolutely > essential for improvisation and collaboration. So paradoxically if > you want to do something original being good at copying is a very > valuable skill. > -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >

Wilson Zorn is NOT writing to repeat what he said and though Wilson said he was done, he figures at least he'll simplify clarify until the thread is through - but he really won't debate. But given Kool Musick's comments, to be clear, Wilson's contention is that Einstein's motivations were more intellectual and aimed at achieving "truth" or value/contribution. This is why Wilson Zorn included also the dictionary definition of "competition" and alluded to how broadly/narrowly we define competition makes a difference. Just clarifying, Wilson won't debate though Kool Musick's contention that Einstein's motivations were more directly competitive and fit even perhaps the narrower definition in the interest of not extending the debate portion of this thread. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kool Musick" <koolmusick@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > > > > To outdo each other...? c'mon Kool man, this reads like a bad movie > > script. > > > The type of competition that's based of ego completely destroys the music > > > for me. I play in a guitar quartet, when we're competing we generally > > > suck bad, the idea is to play for something bigger than oneself. > > > > > > Hmmm.. that sounds like a bad movie script too! > > > > > > howard > > Kool Musick read this and thought it both hilarious and 100% contradictory > for he had already clearly and plainly said that the whole point of > competition was 'to play for something bigger than one's self'. This given, > he therefore thought the most sensible thing to do with the above remark > was to say nothing further. But he thanks his fellow competitor Dennis Gunn > who has done his best to bring the best out of this rather absurd competition. > > And then concerning this remark from Wilson Zorn: > > >I don't see Einstein as in competition with > > >Newton - or in his case even his peers, at least in terms of seeking a prize > > >or seeking something exclusive. > ... Kool Musick was so gob-smacked upon reading it that he simply could not > believe what he was reading. So he had originally also decided to say > nothing further. However ....... > > Albert Einstein's explicit aim - read any biography of the man - was to go > one better than Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein was very specific and very clear > that he wished to show how and where Newton's theories had failed to > explain the evidence and then to demonstrate how and where his own theory > of gravitation had succeeded in describing many anomalies such as the > advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Specifically, Einstein wanted > to incorporate relativity. Einstein was so determined to outdo Newton that > he laboured mightily for over 12 years before he was able to produce 'the > general theory of relativity'. This did exactly what Einstein wanted: > transcend Newton's theories. It was the same with Einstein's photoelectric > theory - and indeed everything else he did. Einstein's very first published > paper was about Brownian motion. It was an overt demonstration of something > very important: that the molecular theory could explain physical phenomena > that other contemporary theories could not. He was being competitive. He > was trying to prove that he had the best idea. Having trounced the > competition with his rendition of Brownian motion he then submitted a paper > about the photoelectric effect. This demonstrated that the molecular theory > was SUCH a good theory that he could use it to explain things that no-one > else could. He invented 'particles of light'. We now call them photons. And > Albert Einstein's photoelectric theory - just like a great guitar or > song-writing technique - was so competitive that anyone else who wants to > 'explain' light has to copy Einstein's riff. Regarding gravitation, the > situation today is that Newton's theories are perfectly adequate for 'most' > purposes - but when you want to do 'better' you have to turn to Einstein's. > However, many scientists find even Einstein's theories inadequate for > explaining the large structure of the universe. So they are struggling to > find a 'better' theory. > > Far from Einstein being an example of someone who was not competing, he was > actually very very competitive indeed all his life and was always > struggling to find a better explanation than anyone else could. He was a > very very nice man, personally, and most self-effacing. But ... still a > great competitor and a fountain of good ideas. He did always seem to have > better ideas, and whenever Einstein started laying down a riff, everybody > else listened. About the only stupid melody he ever laid down was his > 'cosmological constant', and even HE admitted that that was a really stupid > song. We all write them though, right? > > Scientists are ALWAYS struggling to find 'a better theory'. If they were > not competitive then there simply would be no science and no progress. 'My > way is better' is the cry ... 'prove it to me' ... is the counter-cry. > Musicians are also always struggling to find a 'better way' to express > themselves. If they were not we would still all be playing crumhorns or > lutes and there would be no electric guitar. It is because musicians at > some point want to say things better than anyone else before them has said > anything that new instruments come and go. > > To strive to excel ... even if one describes it by saying 'all I want to do > is be a better musician' or 'I'm not competing against anybody I just want > to play well' is to compete. > > To try to find 'something better' IS to be competitive. Without such an > effort one is hardly human. All seems simple enough to me. > > > Yes Dennis. It is ironic. The refusal to accept this account of the human > drive to excel is in itself competitive because the refusal is grounded in > the desire to have a better explanation. This is to try to win the > competition in which the first prize is the satisfaction of having proved > that human beings do NOT compete. > > > > Funny old world, ain't it??!!! > > (By the way ... I too apologize for having dragged this over to the other > list. I hit reply to a message without looking carefully at where it was > going. Sorry again, Phil Angus). > > This old so-and-so is also finished with this thread. Anyone else who wants > it is very welcome to the last word. > > Kool Musick > Keep Musick Kool > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >

At 7:57 PM -0700 6/27/01, Wilson Zorn wrote: > > It's been fun and thanks y'all. > >No, it hasn't. Was for me. >Primarily due to undue extrapolations, deliberate >misinterpretations, and arrogance ("I *know*"). Ouch. Your digs aren't subtle at all. Guess you shouldn't let yourself in a tiff when your point is challenged. But that's OK competitive people are like that. And BTW yes I am sure there are lots of quite passable musicians who only play to no audience but themselves and for the simple pleasure of it, but they are not the ones the header refers to. -- Dennis Gunn Mightyjohn@... check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" info at http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Hi WIlson, No problem with what you said. Was it necessary, though, to quote my whole message in your reply? Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Apologies for the etiquette breach. I do tend to overquote. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kool Musick" <koolmusick@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > Was it necessary, though, to quote my whole message in your reply? > > Kool Musick > Keep Musick Kool > >

Dennis Gunn wrote: > > > > I have a hub on the port my Mac keyboard is on and there are no > problems. > -- > > > I do too. It must be a powered hub though. Dave Eager

I'm not sure if that is true or not. I think too much training and learning does limit one's creativity. Some composers are good at their instruments and some are average, but most of the really great musicians are never great composers. >By the way I find learning things note for note one of the best >possible ways there is to train your ear and a good ear is absolutely >essential for improvisation and collaboration. So paradoxically if >you want to do something original being good at copying is a very >valuable skill. I now know you consider yourself very creative.

At 3:27 AM -0400 6/28/01, GAmoore@... wrote: >I'm not sure if that is true or not. I think too much training and >learning does limit one's creativity. I don't know. Could it be that it just looks that way because people who have limited creativity tend to try to overtrain to make up for it? >Some composers are good at their instruments and some are average, >but most of the really great musicians are never great composers. Jeff Beck wrote some pretty good songs. I really like Adrian Belew's compositions and Jimi Hedrix and Frank Zappa's as well. If I recall correctly Mozart was a prodigy on both Piano and Violin. And what about Bach? Wasn't he renowned as a virtuoso organist? I guess I can't quite see where you are coming from there. > >I now know you consider yourself very creative. So that is an invitation to account for myself? Let me see. Certainly I strive to be creative but that does not mean I am. People always ask me what kind of music my band plays and I have always been at a loss to describe it. When I play it for them and ask them what kind of music it is they can't tell me either. To the avant guard indy crowd I generally hang with: It's pop. To pop people it's avant guard. To the record stores it is something they have a hard time placing. To me it is pop. I can play OK (after doing for 25 years I should be able to after all) but am not the best guitarist around. So rather than demonstrating the chops I don't have to the world I try to use my head in such a way as to make things interesting. My personal taste runs to music that is generally regarded as "difficult" by the main stream. When I listen to albums I have played on I enjoy them and enjoy my contributions to them. Usually I don't when they are fresh off the press but when I hear them 6 months or a year later and have had a chance get the process of creating them out of my mind I do. The critics that have heard what I do say it is creative, but that proves nothing. Bottom line. In answer to your question yes I think I am creative, after all it is my job. If I didn't think I was I would have to choose another profession. As for the "Very", well, sometimes maybe, but I am kind of lazy and that's not good. "Very" creative people can't be lazy. In any case if you want to form your own opinion and or read that of the critics you can follow the link in my signature. The page is kind of out of date but there are some sounds there. I suppose I should put some more on there but I'm lazy. -- Dennis Gunn Mightyjohn@... check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" info at http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 27-06-2001: [to Howard] >You have raised an strong objection but have put forth no logic to >support it. You (and Wilson Zorn as well) basically seem to take >issue with the idea of competition as a productive motivation and as >such of no interest to you and yet you have absolutely nothing to >gain from your objections but the (as of yet un-obtained) >satisfaction of seeing your ideas prevail over mine. In other words >you are taking a position in a debate which you presumably hope to >win, but who's outcome is of no consequence beyond the mutual >amusement we share in pitting our ideas against each other, and yet >the very position you are taking is an attempt to deny your interest >the concept of competition. > >Is that irony or what? No, worse, it's misleading. It's _you_ who, in the above posting, defines this thread to be a "debate", and by using such words you put it in the competition area -- from which all the rest of this pointless post follows. The only conclusion the follows from the above, as far as I can see, as that indeed you view any contribution that's not in line with your own thoughts on the subject as "competition". If this thread is just an exchange of thoughts, and nothing more (as I'd perceived it to be up till now), then Howard's contribution is not geared towards winning a debate or seeing ones ideas prevail over another. There was no competition involved, until you defined it to be so. If someone writes "in my experience there are vast areas where competition plays no role" (or words to that effect), is he then competing with anyone? No, he's just sharing his life's experience and the outlook of life he's gained over the years. You may agree or disagree, that's not relevant. As a teacher, and being twice as old as my students, I often share my view of things with them. Not in order to win a debate (how easy that would be, and how cheap), and not in order to convince them of something (too often rather pointless with 18-year olds). The sole objective is to plant maybe a single sensible idea in the head of 1 or 2 students, hoping that some day they'll think of what I said, and think "oh, HJ didn't have such bad ideas back then" -- maybe sparing them just a tiny bit of suffering or pain or disappointment. Competition plays no role there. After all, wouldn't it be pathetic for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds? >I guess he is finished with this thread. > >It's been fun and thanks y'all. Ditto. cheers, HJ -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra email: mailto:h@... www: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Dennis Gunn wrote: > At 3:27 AM -0400 6/28/01, GAmoore@... wrote: > > >I'm not sure if that is true or not. I think too much training and > >learning does limit one's creativity. > > I don't know. Could it be that it just looks that way because people > who have limited creativity tend to try to overtrain to make up for > it? > Not exactly, I think they are just two disparate talents. The creative mind and the acomplished technician. And I think that brings us back to the start point of this thread. The true 'guitar gods' are those whose technique and creativity both shone brilliantly enough to sway the course of popular music. Their genius was sufficient to bring avant garde concepts to the populus and have it accepted and admired. Through history the same definition applies, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Gershwin, Hendrix, Zappa, Eno.......... Dave Eager [btw, I have played with brilliant technicians who couldn't play into, and out of, a solo, becasue it's not something they could practice 5 hours a day. And brilliant improvisationalists who couldn't play 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star ' straight]

> You kind of attitude is not welcome here. Joeri can, if he sees > fit, remove > you from the list. Or better still - why doesnt Joeri create a new list where we can just curse at each other? Its AGES till LA 5. Best regards, Adam P

> > That's interesting! Anyone else have this message from Kool Musick 9 > times? > > Not me. > Same with the message from betasonic on the LUG, only appeared once even if > Joeri was complaining. > > Sascha Weird things are going on at Yahoo apparently... On the LUG, I also saw a mail about 10 times, and here it was fine... strange.

> > You kind of attitude is not welcome here. Joeri can, if he sees > > fit, remove > > you from the list. I don't really intend to moderate the OT list, except if it's really necessary (and spammers of course are kicked out at once). I hope everyone respects netiquette over here. (crossing my fingers) Tschüss, Joeri -- Joeri Vankeirsbilck joeri@... Belway Productions - http://www.belway.com List-admin Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

At 8:58 AM +0200 6/28/01, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: >Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 27-06-2001: >[to Howard] >>You have raised an strong objection but have put forth no logic to >>support it. You (and Wilson Zorn as well) basically seem to take >>issue with the idea of competition as a productive motivation and as >>such of no interest to you and yet you have absolutely nothing to >>gain from your objections but the (as of yet un-obtained) >>satisfaction of seeing your ideas prevail over mine. In other words >>you are taking a position in a debate which you presumably hope to >>win, but who's outcome is of no consequence beyond the mutual >>amusement we share in pitting our ideas against each other, and yet >>the very position you are taking is an attempt to deny your interest >>the concept of competition. >> >>Is that irony or what? > >No, worse, it's misleading. It's _you_ who, in the above posting, >defines this thread to be a "debate", and by using such words you put >it in the competition area -- from which all the rest of this >pointless post follows. The only conclusion the follows from the >above, as far as I can see, as that indeed you view any contribution >that's not in line with your own thoughts on the subject as >"competition". So you're you're a teacher? Look in a dictionary. The first entry in Websters New World says to debate is"to discuss opposing reasons". When Howard weighed in with "Hogwash...." he was taking an opposing point of view if there ever was one. >After all, wouldn't it be pathetic >for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds? It would be particularly pathetic if the 18 year old looked in a dictionary whupped the 38 year olds butt. By the way do you teach spelling? Children debating adults. I am particularly reminded of the following true story: I was 8 years old and the school nurse was speaking to the school assembly about blood cells "there red ones and blue ones but really there is only one kind" she said. So I raised my hand said "What about white blood cells?" she smiled and said there was "no such thing". I was sure that was not true and said so. So she asked where I got the information. "From a movie" I said. She laughed hard enough to make the 300 children and teachers get side aches then when the laughter died down enough for her to be heard said "You should not trust everything I saw in Science Fiction movies". Of course she was wrong but she was a 40 year old nurse and I was a 8 year old kid so therefore she was right. To this day I have wondered how she could have gotten where she was and not learned such a basic fact about biology. So the next week when my favorite 3rd grade teacher told us that gravity was the result of the earth spinning. I kind of decided I knew about all I wanted to know to about teachers and started trying to concentrate on getting information from other sources. Maybe your *refusal* to debate your students is pathetic. Maybe they are worthy of a little more respect and a little less condescension. The teachers I respected, and there were some, were not quite as eager as you appear to be to dismiss the idea that an 18 year old might actually know something a 38 year old didn't. Hey wow I still remember something I learned 34 years ago!! Lucky Lucky. Lucky. -- Dennis Gunn Mightyjohn@... check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" info at http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 28-06-2001: > >>Is that irony or what? >> >>No, worse, it's misleading. It's _you_ who, in the above posting, >>defines this thread to be a "debate", and by using such words you put >>it in the competition area -- from which all the rest of this >>pointless post follows. The only conclusion the follows from the >>above, as far as I can see, as that indeed you view any contribution >>that's not in line with your own thoughts on the subject as >>"competition". > >So you're you're a teacher? Look in a dictionary. The first entry >in Websters New World says to debate is"to discuss opposing reasons". >When Howard weighed in with "Hogwash...." he was taking an opposing >point of view if there ever was one. In everyday language, a "debate" is more competitive and more geared towards winning than an "exchange of thoughts" is. I don't care what the dictionary says. Howard expressed a point of view. That might as well be with the intention to "exchange thoughts" as with the intention to "argue differing viewpoints with the hope of winning". From his post I can only conclude the former was his intention, while you make it sound as if the latter was. While everybody praised the Good of Competition, all Howard did was say "I've come to realise over the years that it's actually possible to do things without competition playing a role". And now you say that he's _debating_ his point of view, and suggesting that this too is competition, with the intention of winning??? I don't even know what to say to that as it's too bizarre... > >After all, wouldn't it be pathetic >>for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds? > >It would be particularly pathetic if the 18 year old looked in a >dictionary whupped the 38 year olds butt. Oh, very strong argument... >By the way do you teach spelling? Ah, even stronger! Way to go... In case you _really_ don't get it: 1) Trying to live a life outside the LUG, I sometimes hurry, and mistype a word. Slip of the finger. Familiar? 2) I'm Dutch. I think my command of the English language compares favorably (without a 'u', as in UK-spelling) to that of some native English speakers. How's your Dutch nowadays? 3) I teach mathematics. >I am particularly reminded of the following true story: >[...] >So the next week when my favorite 3rd grade teacher told us that >gravity was the result of the earth spinning. I kind of decided I >knew about all I wanted to know to about teachers and started trying >to concentrate on getting information from other sources. And I once heard a guy claim he was a great guitarist, but he couldn't distinguish a C major from a Esus4, and he couldn't play s***. Since then I've only listened to keyboard music. >Maybe your *refusal* to debate your students is pathetic. Maybe they >are worthy of a little more respect and a little less condescension. >The teachers I respected, and there were some, were not quite as >eager as you appear to be to dismiss the idea that an 18 year old >might actually know something a 38 year old didn't. I wonder, is the ability to read something you learn over the years, or is it something you're born with...? I'm not even going to argue about this, as it's too silly to be worthy of my time. But let me assure you that generally I respect my students and they respect me. In the yearly "poll" I consistently come out as one of the more popular teachers, both from a teaching perspective and from a personal perspective. And I'm the only teacher who still has regular contacts with ex-students, and whose ex-students (some of them, not all of course) still come over at my place to have a beer from time to time. But hey, that's what you get when you adopt a condescending attitude, and don't respect them. I can live with that, I truly can... >Hey wow I still remember something I learned 34 years ago!! Yeah... cheese, HJ -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra email: mailto:h@... www: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

> > >After all, wouldn't it be pathetic > >>for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds? > >It would be particularly pathetic if the 18 year old looked in a > >dictionary whupped the 38 year olds butt. > Oh, very strong argument... etc etc... Hey hey... what's this supposed to be? Arguments, fightings and name calling should be done on the LUG, not here! ;-)))) Guys, be a bit constructive and don't start arguing over silly things over here too.... please! Bye, J -- Joeri Vankeirsbilck joeri@... Belway Productions - http://www.belway.com List-admin Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM