Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Yes, I correct myself in saying these things are not relevant.  Everything IS relevant until it's worked out individually within oneself both physically and psychologically. This means having many experiences. Whether it concerns eating, dressing, checking the lighting or the acoustics, how close the seats are to the stage, who does the announcing, what they say, who makes the programs, who choses the program, etc. etc. The more control one has over creating your own state/condition and also over the stage conditions helps with being more comfortable on stage. As one has more and more experience you will find the answers to the challenges presented for playing on stage.

My comments about eating, etc. were not specific in that I'm taking it for granted that one knows how much to eat or not and how soon before a performance to eat or not. This comes with experience and yes, that's naturally how it gets worked out. Individually. I try to do nothing different than I do at home before playing. I've never heard of anybody being able to play without discomfort if they eat too much. It's just common sense that says that one shouldn't be stuffing oneself before playing (or actually anytime). However, if it's been hours since the last meal then one might not have the energy one needs. The same with not drinking too much water for the obvious reasons. I personally eat a little 2 to 3 hours before playing and then go back and warm up some more (if possible), then get dressed and go on. It also depends on what there is to eat. I don't like anything that's too spicy as it will make one thirsty, curry dries me out, nor greasy foods, nor milk as one has to be aware of the throat condition, etc. etc. Everyone needs to find out what works for themselves.

If you have time you should go onto the stage where you're going to play a few hours ahead of time and check out the acoustics. Every place is different. And even spots on the stage make the sound different in your ears. Different length of flute will be different. Some stages are good for short flutes and some better for longer flutes. The process of checking this out will give you more confidence and keep any surprises to a minimum when you go to do your concert. It also tends to make the place more "friendly" for you and less strange

The "self consciousness" is your self, or ourselves & has  everything to do with "our" self created
existential  mess. We make a problem out of the joy. Get nervous over beauty. Caring over what others think is expecting something. All skill is meaningless when an angel pisses in your flintlock.

chikuzen wrote:

Justin, you are wise beyond your years. My older friend in Japan (born in the late 1890s) talked about this once. She said that there was a difference in the way people used to listen to music in that they listened to the intention of the performer. She was put off by how critical everyone has become expecting perfection like what comes out of a studio and not understanding that you are experiencing the whole HUMAN being when they are on stage. The intention is the heart and mind of the performer and as long as that focus of intention is unbroken then the audience has a continuity of experience.

Your post reminds of my favorite Saul Bellow quote-   "Don't molest me with the facts."

Hi Jeffery, Great topic!

lowonthetotem wrote:

...
It is even worse if someone is actually listening.  One thing that came to mind within a couple of months of picking this instrument up is play for some people.  I volunteer at a hospice and thought it would be cool to be able to play for some of the patients.  Lack of skill notwithstanding, I am not sure that I will ever be able to get up in front of people.  It has always been a problem for me.  In college I wrote poetry and actually won some awards for it, but when it came time to read the piece in front of people, I never failed to stumble over the words, interject stupid "Um's" and "Uh's," and generally make a train wreck of myself.

Much power to you! I think most people want to share their unique experiences of living. Some how, under that vast canvas of joy and pain, the shared experience can make the world a better place.

My motivations are pure.  I'd like to bring some tranguil music to some folks dealing with a less than tranguil time in their life.  I don't want to "put on a show" or be praised.  I just wondered if there are any words of wisdom from people who perform regularly.

Are there strategies that can be encorporated?  Are there exercises, mental exercises maybe, that can be done to help get one over the hump of being overly concerned with what every single person thinks?  I understand that practice makes perfect and certain amount of confidence can be accomplished through proficiency, and I am working dilligently on that.  Maybe I am looking for a magic spell that doesn't exist, but I thought I'd ask.

Please feel free to move this post if this is not the proper venue.  Thanks in advance.

Having been a performer for over half my life, I would say that you should first connect with what it is about this instrument that you love.  Those precious moments at 4 or 5am. What is that about? Only you know. Hone into that and then share that with your audience. If that is your process, it won't matter whether anyone will like it or not. A bell will ring even if there is no one in the forest to hear it. When I'm performing for a paying audience, I always hope that at least 50% of the audience will connect with me. Who knows what the other half may bring to the show. In less formal settings, I'm sure you'll fair better (No one from the New York Times will write a bad review about you!

Lots of great advice on this thread. To paraphrase Lance - the more you do it, the easier it gets.


Enjoy the deep breathing my friend, Perry

chikuzen wrote:

Justin, you are wise beyond your years. My older friend in Japan (born in the late 1890s) talked about this once. She said that there was a difference in the way people used to listen to music in that they listened to the intention of the performer. She was put off by how critical everyone has become expecting perfection like what comes out of a studio and not understanding that you are experiencing the whole HUMAN being when they are on stage. The intention is the heart and mind of the performer and as long as that focus of intention is unbroken then the audience has a continuity of experience.

Hi Michael
This is very interesting. I have a good friend here in Japan who spends much time listening to music. Nearly all he listens to is gramophone records (78's). He says that compared to modern recordings, the old gramophone-era recordings have much less accurate pitch (I mean, inaccurate relative pitch, i.e. playing out of tune), and also much less accurate timing. But he says a far higher percentage of those recordings are "musical" than are modern recordings. That was interesting to hear. It can be easy for a musician who trains hard to think that timing and pitch make music. But these guys were all over the place, and yet, more musical. A dilemma for the intellect.

He actually largely blames music education for this demusicalization. Concentration on the parts, rather than the whole. He was a pipe organ maker, and he also saw this trend away from holistic pipe organ making recently (last century or so), and notes it in violins, pianos etc. I have spoken with an oud maker who says the same about the Arabic world, and many people here in Japan also. People might think it is just because people look back to the "good old days", but I think it is something much more than that. It seems quite global. It might very well be due to recordings? A large part of the instrument-making change is connected to desire to play to larger audiences (volume takes precedence over tone colour - incidentally, volume is a quantity, tone colour a quality, and this reveals another interesting aspect of the phenomenon). But as for the result which recordings have has, it is interesting what your friend has pointed out. The consequence it may have had on people listen.

Still, whatever generalisations may exist between past times and present, we can still strive to play in a whole way. That is what has always struck me in the playing of the great musicians I have met.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2008-09-07 10:23:19)

Dear Edosan
Since we are subjects, I can't imagine how appreciation of music could be anything other than subjective. However to say that subjective experience is invalid, would surely sweep aside all art. Similarly whereas modern science is a supposedly objective science of quantities (measurable), an holistic approach comes through qualities. One great scientist trying to convince the (fanatical) scientific community of the validity of a qualitative approach, is Brian Goodwin. He is a most wonderful man. His books are also worth a read.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Justin wrote:

Dear Edosan
Since we are subjects, I can't imagine how appreciation of music could be anything other than subjective. However to say that subjective experience is invalid, would surely sweep aside all art. Similarly whereas modern science is a supposedly objective science of quantities (measurable), an holistic approach comes through qualities. One great scientist trying to convince the (fanatical) scientific community of the validity of a qualitative approach, is Brian Goodwin. He is a most wonderful man. His books are also worth a read.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

I didn't say subjective experience was invalid (did I?); I said it was determinative.

And it is.

From my point of view, this outlook is not cynical, just observant.

Last edited by edosan (2008-09-08 03:21:08)

Hi Nyokai

nyokai wrote:

However, within many traditions there are standards of musicality, with specific criteria for determining which performer is a "better" musician. And, a listener may have also developed individual criteria which, though subjective at core, may be APPLIED in a somewhat objective manner when comparing performances.

This is sounds like what I was referring to when I said "Concentration on the parts". This I believe has the danger of producing "music-less" music. Or, "non-musical sound". This sounds to me like judging music in terms of technicality. I totally know what you mean though, as I also listen to that. We are trained as classical shakuhachi players, so we are deeply involved in the specific nuances, phrasing and so on. We can hear who can do it "better" or not, who is doing it "right" or "wrong". There is an appreciation in that also. But I think that is perhaps particularly a musician's way of listening. Sometimes even, our training can block our ears, as when the player may be playing with great musicality but breaking the "rules". (In that case the untrained audience may be able to hear the musicality of the performer far easier that us, as our holistic-ears may have been closed as a reaction to poor technique). This reminds me of a story one of my teachers told me. When he was young, he had to study a lot in the philosophy college. They were only kids, but they knew well many detailed teachings, listing 5 such as such qualities, 9 stages of such and such and so on. Then they would go to an enlightened yogi in the next village, and ask him some questions, and he would give the answers in terms of the 6 such as such qualities, 7 stages of such and such and so on, getting the details mixed up with all sorts of philosophical mistakes! It was very funny for them. However, since he was enlightened, actually his speech was infinitely more useful than the words of the books, since it came from his direct realisation.

The man who told me this story himself is now an accomplished yogi. He studied a lot of books because, in his words, people ask him a lot of questions! In that respect it serves him very usefully to know the detailed words, to help him express and communicate his realisation. Perhaps that then is also the usefulness of us learning the detailed "parts" of our musical tradition. Without fundamental musicality, those parts are merely empty. Music-less sounds. But when a great musicality is sounded through those parts, we have something wonderful.

nyokai wrote:

For me personally, the "best" musicians are those who have integrated the music so well into their bodies that they can be completely relaxed and free with it -- even in the context of very specifically determined notes, rhythms, etc. I believe you can hear this freedom as a constant subtle dance of sound -- a performer literally "playing" the music rather than presenting it, recreating it, or "getting it right." No matter the style, when I hear this level of musicianship I am moved.

This sounds like what I was meaning. This sounds like real music.

It is also very interesting what you say about the recording process. Seeing as the music which most people hear is a product of such a recording process, rather than live, that then surely must have had a great impact.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2008-09-08 10:49:47)