From: lbroda@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Larry Broda)
Subject: Re: Parkening
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:49:53 GMT

v035550@stortek.com (Steve Monroe) writes:


>In article 1992Nov9.051707.19716@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU,
>markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU writes,
> 

> 
>The above types of comments are typical of a bunch of classical snobby
>types, who, if EVERY detail isn't in its own proper box is labeled
>with terms like "second rate" and so forth.  If you wish to hear perfection,
>get a sequencer.  Only a machine will give you the perfection you are looking
>for.  Only a machine should.

I agree that there are snobs who will criticize players as you
describe, but I think you are wrong in generalizing about the
Parkening thread this way.  True, perfection would be boring, but
there are certain standards that one expects of an artist of
Parkening's reputation.  No, we may not be guitarists on Parkenings
level (then again, I don't know that some on this group aren't) but
that doesn't matter.  The point is that Parkening is presented as one
of the world's foremost guitarists.  We are comparing him not to
ourselves, but to others of the same stature. 


>  The "naily" bit and low volume is part of an individual's style.

No, a pure sound and strong volume and projection are not sylistic
matters, they are accepted requirements of good guitar playing and
among the most basic things a classical guitarist is taught.  These
are valid criticisms.  Perhaps your statements have validity in the
pop fields, but not in classical music.  

>Finally, the fact that people are "not so good as Parkening" takes away any
>credibility that their criticism may have.

Bull.  It makes no sense to say this.  I can't box, but if I see a guy
lose fight after fight I can tell you he isn't a good boxer.  I'm not
comparing him to myself, I`m comparing him to those he is competing
with.  Perhaps he is better than 99% of the population, but how does
he compare with his peers?  

In addition, many writing in this group have had a lot of musical
training.  They know what to look for and listen for.  Just because
you can't play an even tremelo doesn't mean you don't know one when
you hear it.

I think the point that many are making here is that Parkening does not
live up to his hype.  He cannot give a live performance that matches
his albums.  Many of us, given a studio full of dubbing equipment,
could eventually produce a good performance on tape.  Only a fine
musician can consistently reproduce it in front of an audience.  I
have heard Parkening live, and he was fine, but his playing was not in
the same class as the many of the finest guitarists of today.
Everybody is allowed an occasional off day, but I've heard these
criticisms of Parkening time and time again, not just in this group.
I've heard a lot of guitarists in prominent positions who couldn't
compare with Parkening, but when your albums and flyers say you are
one of the world's finest guitarists, you are expected to meet very
high standards.

One thing you hear again and again among guitarists is a statement
similar to this:

"I heard so-and-so years ago and thought they were the greatest, but I
heard them again recently, and was disappointed.  Did they get worse,
or do I just know more?"

Well, unless most musicians start good and steadily decline, I think
the conclusion is that musical training (and even simply years of
listening to good musicians with the mind as well as the ears) does
increase one's ability as a critic.

One last point (hey everybody, wake up.  I'm almost done):

After all these years, the classic guitar has come along away, but it
is still struggling to be given its rightful place among other
classical instruments.  This will never occur if the guitar's elite
players are not held to the highest standards.  It is the duty of the
critics, teachers, and the musical community to keep these standards
high and hold performers to them.  If this seems like snobbery, then
perhaps snobbery is necessary.  But if we let the standards slip,
Universities are not going to invest in guitar programs, audiences
(and I mean audiences not made up of 80% guitarists) are not going to
buy tickets, and the classical guitar will slip into oblivian once
again.

--
Larry Broda
Dept. of Psychology
Univ. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
lbroda@s.psych.uiuc.edu