Subtitle: Strong feelings may help artists enter the "flow" state of consciousness
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/musician-brain-creativity_568a7e3ce4b06fa68882c94e
 
Interesting article.

 

 
Hey look!  I stayed on topic!  

The next article was good too and probably explains why musicians can be so hard to deal with (and love to get hurt right before dramatically quitting the forum - lol!).
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/artists-sensitive-creative_567f02dee4b0b958f6598764
 
 
 

Hi,
 
"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent...”
 
Notice that this was stated by a writer!
 
So, you know that writers, also have that state. Btw, so do all artists for the most part. And it is the reason why so many of them isolate themselves from the rest of people/society, because it is difficult to describe and discuss.
 
When I tell you folks that a lot of what I write comes from "visions" and "dreams", you really have no idea what I am saying, and how I translate these two "ideas" ... when in fact, for me, they are NOT ideas, but a part of my inner reality. I call them "my magic theater", if you do not mind me using a literary allusion I love dearly!
 
Many writers, and other cultural and social fields, spend their time discussing what they do and how ... and some of these make it all look and sound like a very structured and mental process. And sometimes, it is not.
 
I have mentioned in the past some ideas, which came from theater and the work of Peter Brook, that this can be taught, but the actors, musicians, artists, writers, have to be open minded to the flow of ideas, and not "stop" so you can record them or what not ... the only thing that teaches you in these moments is the "flow" and the continuity of the work itself.
 
In rock music, going back to many years, there is very little of this being done, and I believe most of this takes place because of the commercial aspect is so strong, that no one can conceive the idea/concept of doing something different ... it's always a song, with the same beat or the same bridge, or break ... and just sticking to the flow of the thing, is not always the defining context of the piece of work at hand.
 
There is a reason why I like "improvisations", because they bring out the inner person, in a way that you can not describe, and (sometimes) that you didn't know. This is done, A LOT, in theater and film, but almost exclusively ignored in music and painting, although if I use my sister as an example, she uses her work as a form of meditation and it shows in her work.
 
Listening to "improvisations" in music, is challenging, and you can almost detail immediately which ones are based on notes and chords, and which ones are so free form, that something else is defined. For example, if you hear "Yeti", the AD2 improvisation title piece, it makes you wonder how one transition ever lead to another ... yet it does and it comes together strongly. Now, you go listen to Jon McGlothlin play with some Hindu masters ... and it is totally different, and I'm not sure that these are musically attached as much as they might be "mechanically" and "physically" attached to his fingers and movement ... or hearing the early work of Egberto Gismonti, it is hard to think that this is "composed" at all. Rock music, otherwise, has very little improvisation per se, at least the improvisations that are well defined or detailed. Robert Fripp and his work with King Crimson, uses a lot of the Gurdgieff exercises for concentration, with adaptation of these definitions to music. It works well with King Crimson, very well, in fact.
 
I have, over the years, discussed these a lot, and many different variations of exercises ... that can be done with music, just like I would with actors on the stage. Sadly, most folks are not willing, or capable, of "Letting go", to learn something ... that I have no words for, and neither would they ... and it would help define them as a musician if they were interested. Sadly, I have never heard a single reply in the positive side of things in this area, and I have seen it work and have worked with musicians in my earlier days, and know that there are many things that can be done, and they are not all ... that was just an example or two, and the issue might just be that it has to be spontaneous and can not be "pre-thought", for it all to come out well ...
 
One last detail ... you have to learn to not think that all of it is "important". I would divide these moments so that on one day it gets recorded, but the next day you can not record it ... so that you learn to concentrate on what you are playing, and not on the "external" that interrupts the flow of that inner place ... and this is probably the most important part of it all ... the concentration that helps you bring it all alive, can not be "split" for things to work right. A recording would break your inner thought later, and not allow you to go back and "relive" it for yourself ... the experience of which is different than you listening to it later, when you find that you can be more technical about it.
 
Sad that the words I write are ignored, and they are almost the same thing as those written up on that article, and I have been more detailed and defined than otherwise, specially when it comes to different types of improvisations for music! 

TL;DR? 

Moshkito
Hi,
 
you really have no idea what I am saying

 
Coffee Honed.

Moshkito
Hi,
When I tell you folks that a lot of what I write comes from "visions" and "dreams", you really have no idea what I am saying, 

Hi,
 
Then why in the name of all that is good do you keep saying it?
 
 

bapu

Moshkito
Hi,
When I tell you folks that a lot of what I write comes from "visions" and "dreams", you really have no idea what I am saying, 

Hi,
 
Then why in the name of all that is good do you keep saying it?

 
Hi,
 
"But the sun, Perry!" I urged. "How in the world can the sun shine through five hundred miles of solid crust?"
 
"It is not the sun of the outer world that we see here. It is another sun—an entirely different sun—that casts its eternal noonday effulgence upon the face of the inner world. Look at it now, David—if you can see it from the doorway of this hut—and you will see that it is still in the exact center of the heavens. We have been here for many hours—yet it is still noon.
 
"And withal it is very simple, David. The earth was once a nebulous mass. It cooled, and as it cooled it shrank. At length a thin crust of solid matter formed upon its outer surface—a sort of shell; but within it was partially molten matter and highly expanded gases. As it continued to cool, what happened? Centrifugal force burled the particles of the nebulous center toward the crust as rapidly as they approached a solid state. You have seen the same principle practically applied in the modern cream separator. Presently there was only a small super-heated core of gaseous matter remaining within a huge vacant interior left by the contraction of the cooling gases. The equal attraction of the solid crust from all directions maintained this luminous core in the exact center of the hollow globe. What remains of it is the sun you saw today—a relatively tiny thing at the exact center of the earth. Equally to every part of this inner world it diffuses its perpetual noonday light and torrid heat.
 
"This inner world must have cooled sufficiently to support animal life long ages after life appeared upon the outer crust, but that the same agencies were at work here is evident from the similar forms of both animal and vegetable creation which we have already seen. Take the great beast which attacked us, for example. Unquestionably a counterpart of the Megatherium of the post-Pliocene period of the outer crust, whose fossilized skeleton has been found in South America."
 
"But the grotesque inhabitants of this forest?" I urged. "Surely they have no counterpart in the earth's history."
"Who can tell?" he rejoined. "They may constitute the link between ape and man, all traces of which have been swallowed by the countless convulsions which have racked the outer crust, or they may be merely the result of evolution along slightly different lines—either is quite possible."
 
Further speculation was interrupted by the appearance of several of our captors before the entrance of the hut. Two of them entered and dragged us forth. The perilous pathways and the surrounding trees were filled with the black ape-men, their females, and their young. There was not an ornament, a weapon, or a garment among the lot.
 
"Quite low in the scale of creation," commented Perry.

 

Hi,
 
Nice set of articles ... you can find a lot of these things in film, and specially with directors ... Godard on Godard, is actually difficult to follow ... how the heck does he go from here to there? ... kind of thing. I'm reading Gilliam on Gilliam. Truffaut on Truffaut is excellent reading.
 
I would love to see a series of these things on musicians, but it's hard to see "Madonna on Madonna" ... talking about what ... her bootsies? ... but Kate Bush on Kate Bush would be a nice one, but is there something that her albums do not say? Sting on Sting would be OK, if he went back on his history some, and early days, and how he learned these things. David Bowie did "Behind the Music" which is very good ... but in general, most of them were more interested with their fame and maintaining their myth ... than being honest about the whole thing. I tend to think of some of these as people that do not realize how lucky they are, and got ... but if you use the Coffee House as an example, I am not sure that we can learn a whole lot about all the folks ... a song here or there ... but is that the "full" artist?
 
Highly recommend reading these and suggesting some folks on CH study them a wee bit ... but the "how" is the part they are not addressing, and I am! The HOW is way more important than the rest of the ideas ... and thoughts and the like.

bapu

Moshkito
Hi,
When I tell you folks that a lot of what I write comes from "visions" and "dreams", you really have no idea what I am saying, 

Hi,
 
Then why in the name of all that is good do you keep saying it?

So, you have never believed anyone that lived that created a painting, a piece of music, a book ... you are just not a believer, that's all ... so yeah, you are better off dancing!
 
Btw, the greatest "seers" EVER, never quit! It's why we remember them!