| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kika_polu
Aloha
5 Posts |
 Posted - 08/31/2007 : 5:45:28 PM
|
| I find some of the jargon used here a little exasperating. "I know just enough music/musicology talk to be dangerous." Umm, what? And I certainly never thought "neurophysiology" would ever come up on a messageboard about slack-key. If you got a group of the greats to sit in on this I'd bet you they'd be laughing hard. This gotten a little silly. |
"No one puts Baby in a corner!" |
 |
|
|
noeau
Ha`aha`a
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 8:22:47 PM
|
| Wow! I haven't seen this thread in a while. What is it all about? This is not Hawaiian style. All you guys getting excited and trying to be soooo right about something that is as I said not very important in the scheme of things. Again with due respect to you all I say 'ainokea because when all is said and done life ist too short to worry about this kind stuff. Definitions and everything are irrelevant because today's meaning not going be true tomorrow. Write your books and stamp your feet. The sands of time going wipe em out soon enough like footprints on the beach. No wonder guys like Led say "jus press". Let this stuff go awreddy!!!! |
No'eau, eia au he mea pa'ani wale nō. |
|
|
|
RWD
`Olu`olu
USA
850 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 02:13:33 AM
|
This is what I think...
Some of us are fine with mystical descriptions, and others are not.
Some feel there is worthy knowlege to be gained, others feel it is a waste of time.
I learned several things from this so it was "all good" for me.
Even the idea that it is not worth talking about taught me something. |
Bob |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 06:43:51 AM
|
Neurophysiology is that boring stuff that allows your hands to do what your musical imagination comes up with. Maybe nothing that a player needs to worry about on stage, but you might want your doctor or physical therapist to be familiar with it when those hands start hurting. As for being "so right" about things being somehow un-Hawaiian--was it wrong for Auntie Alice and other elders to insist on correct Hawaiian language from younger-generation singers? Led's stunning performances grow out of both a great inborn talent *and* a lifetime of working to get it so right--"Jus' press," I suspect, is his way of saying "Aw shucks."
|
|
|
|
noeau
Ha`aha`a
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 12:22:20 PM
|
No. The un-hawaiian thing to me is the idea that some times we get caught up in the discussion and get bogged down with details and begin to get all up about it. To site this and that authority and who said what does not prove or disprove a point. We seem to be attempting to define the undefinable. When we label something we limit the boundaries of the subject within the frame work of the definition. We then become limited in our own interpretations and understanding of anything. Chuang Tzu hesitated to write down things, even though he did for the sake of discussion, because it then cemented a concept of something by writing it down. That was the antithesis to Tao since Tao is about constant flux and change. The more we try to justify our mere attempts at definition the more we limit the meaning of it. Therefore this discussion then becomes a juxtaposition of science versus philosophy.
The example of Aunty Alice correcting pronunciation has nothing to do with defining in such a strict manner the nature of slack key guitar. Slack key guitar is ethereal and elusive while pono language usage can be looked at and analyzed. To discuss slack key in such a way is akin to whether grass grows left, right, or straight up depending on the time of day and the temperature and which way the wind is blowing. If things were always just so right the slack key masters wouldn't be telling us they never play a song the same way twice, All I'm trying to say is let's leave the discussion and just play more music. Less talk and more play makes sense to me. Again I must insist that I am not trying to belittle anyone. I respect all the ideas put forth. We, I think can all agree when we hear kiho'alu we recognize it for what it is. It don't matter if the strings are slacked, tightened or whatever. It doesn't matter if the player is White, brown, green or purple. It doesn't matter if it is played in Samoa, Hawai'i, California. or China. |
No'eau, eia au he mea pa'ani wale nō. |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 2:19:09 PM
|
One of my mentors used to say everyone is born a baby Platonist or a baby Aristotelian and that later on you can tell which is which by the condition of their desks--Platonist: messy; Aristotelian: neat. While I never could buy the desk part of the theory (my extraordinarily organized and analytical wife has a desk that looks like critters nest on it, and mine is dirty to boot), I am clearly a baby Aristotelian (trained by Jesuits rather than Taoists) and I think that for some of us, analysis and categorization and even explanation are part of our enjoyment of the world and its wonders.
Years ago, after a conversation about a movie, my sister asked, "Can't you stop analyzing and just enjoy it?" And my answer was that analysis is part of my enjoyment. It doesn't negate or diminish the primal experience of the art--in fact, for me it is inextricably bound up with it. That personality trait (along with a love of the sound of my own voice) is part of why I became a teacher and then a writer, and I can't turn it off any more than I can turn off my awareness of the structure of a piece of music or the details and subtlties of its performance. And I find that articulating my understanding is also an extension of my enjoyment--it's a way of sharing that is (for me, at least) more satisfying, more fulfilling than just saying, "Gee, ain't it pretty?" And when I come across a reader who doesn't like what I publish, all I can say is, "Sorry it didn't please you--I guess you won't be reading my stuff, then."
|
|
|
|
slipry1
Ha`aha`a
USA
1511 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 2:43:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russell Letson
Neurophysiology is that boring stuff that allows your hands to do what your musical imagination comes up with. Maybe nothing that a player needs to worry about on stage, but you might want your doctor or physical therapist to be familiar with it when those hands start hurting. As for being "so right" about things being somehow un-Hawaiian--was it wrong for Auntie Alice and other elders to insist on correct Hawaiian language from younger-generation singers? Led's stunning performances grow out of both a great inborn talent *and* a lifetime of working to get it so right--"Jus' press," I suspect, is his way of saying "Aw shucks."
I beg to differ, having worked in this area for my Master's Degree in Bioengineering. What you are describing is calle :kinesiology", and the ONLY thing (IMHO) important here is that your kinesthetic sensors embeddin in your skin know where your body is at all times WITHOUT looking at the part. One of my favorite exercises for new students (guitar, banjo, whatever) is to have them (try it!!) touch thier right shoulder blade with thier left hand . You cannot see it, but (unless you have leprosy) you can immediately touch it! Then comes the question "How can you touch it whn you can't see it?" AHA. |
keaka |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 3:11:53 PM
|
Proprioception is the term I'm familiar with for that awareness-of-body-parts-in-space sense. The original context of the neurophysiology comment had to do with being able to discuss things like artistic enjoyment in an objective manner, and I rather cavalierly expanded the term (and the discussion) to include the whole signal chain from brain to fingers. What can you expect from an English teacher educated way beyond his capacity? (Stole that last bit from Garrison Keillor.)
|
|
|
|
RJS
Ha`aha`a
1635 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 3:34:02 PM
|
Al,
If you look back at my postings over the years, you will see that I am very much in synch with NOT creating a definition, and much for the reasons that you state. In addition, I believe that if something doesn't change over time, it is essentially a museum piece not a living reality.
That said, George Kahumoku jr., Keola Beamer and Ozzie Kotani have often told stories of their elders having very strict crtierea for what is slack key and what isn't. Auntie Alice did not just judge Gabby and others for poor language skills, but for playing in a style which she thought was not slack key as it shouyld be played. The reason why I'm saying this is that the tendency to create definitions and boundaries doesn't just lurk with us on this web site -- it's probably part of human nature -- and it certainly was "practiced" by the "slack key kupuna."
That's one reason why a forum for discussing various viewpoints is crucial -- if them who don't want strict definitions aren't able to argur with them who want definitions, the definers will win out -- happens all the time, mainly because new people coming into the art form want to be assured they are doing it "right." We need to keep the discussion open and respectful -- and ongoing. |
|
|
|
RWD
`Olu`olu
USA
850 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 6:43:38 PM
|
For me, this whole question was about a specific CD by Ozzie.
Confusion is what caused me to ask. I just wanted to find out why it was slack key.
There have been some very interesting responses though.
I can see that some do not want to lock slack key down by defining it and I do understand that reasoning.
I think most of us feel that we would know it when we hear it.
However, this has occured to me:
When someone "knows it when they hear it" that person does in fact have a definition of what it is. Would you not agree?
|
Bob |
Edited by - RWD on 09/01/2007 6:50:31 PM |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 7:41:36 PM
|
We may be talking about two different kinds of definition--the kind that says "This is what I see when I look carefully at X" versus the kind that says "This and only this is what X really is." (When I was studying grammatical systems, these were the descriptive and prescriptive approaches.) I've heard more than one player say of some piece or style, "That's not really slack key, that's [fill in the blank]." This I take to be an expression of "I know it when I hear it," and it implies a model of what slack key ought to sound like. This is a prescriptive comment, and Auntie Alice famously had a definitely prescriptive idea of what genuine old-style slack key was. (My informants tell me that her concern was that the old style be preserved, so she was not simply dismissing the playing of Gabby, Ray, Leonard, and Fred Punahoa, but instead insisting on keeping the roots alive. Interestingly enough, Ray has also told me that some kinds of playing lack the nahenahe feeling that he sees as essential to slack key, so the beat goes on.)
On the other hand, Elizabeth Tatar's treatement of the style and tradition in Hawaiian Music and Musicians seems to me to be quite descriptive--she lays out what players actually did, what they called the various kinds of strokes and tunings, and suggests where the center of the style resides.
This is that center-and-periphery idea I keep coming back to: There is a core of traits that we respond to as "slack key," and if too many of them get pulled too far from the center, we start to think of the tune or performance as "not really slack key any more." I recall a concert during which my wife (who has suffered nearly 40 years of living with a guitar nerd and can identify Ray or Sonny or Gabby very quickly when I put on a CD) leaned over and asked, "Is this really slack key?" And I think she was correct--right then what was being played sounded to me like slack-key-flavored New Age material. And other experienced listeners had the same response, so there was clearly a shared sense of the outer boundary being crossed and some neighboring territory entered.
Bob's initial question is an entirely reasonable one, and one that Ozzie has addressed pretty directly when discussing his approach to the music: he knows when he is right in the middle of the tradition and when he is pushing one or another of its parameters (usually the harmonic ones). But there's a big difference between articulating what one does (or hears) and setting out a list of thou-shalt/shalt-nots. I don't think anybody here is trying to establish the Slack Key Police. (And if they do, I'll wind up in the slammer.)
|
|
|
|
mike2jb
Lokahi
USA
213 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 8:08:23 PM
|
quote:
Haole Boy said:
"When someone 'knows it when they hear it' that person does in fact have a definition of what it is. Would you not agree?"
Well, not necessarily, Bob. That person has a concept of what he believes slack key is, but he might not be able to produce a “definition”—a verbal description that would allow someone else to understand the concept he’s formed. By age four most kids can use nouns and verbs and adjectives in exactly the right way nearly all the time, but they could not define those terms—that’s a different skill.
Maybe that’s a picky point, but it seems to me it lies at the heart of discussions we’ve had like this one.
Some folks, like me, are verbal learners: starting out, I could watch my teacher play all I wanted, but I had to hear him say “press the tip of your ring finger, left hand, on the top string—that’s the little one—on the fourth fret, and then slide it up to the next higher fret.” Look at Ozzie’s book and you’ll read a lot of similar verbiage.
On the other hand, maybe another player learns differently--he's one of the lucky ones who can repeat this maneuver after his kumu performs it once and then says “Jus’ press.” Words just get in the way for him. If so, more power to him.
There are all kinds of learners around, and I think that’s maybe one reason people come to discussions like this one with different perspectives. There’s a difference between “I can’t define slack key” and “Slack key can’t be defined and you shouldn’t try.”
Words are powerful, but they are also limiting: I’m learning a lot from this thread, as from other similar ones we’ve had, and I'm so glad Bob brought it up and so many have offered their thoughts. But I wonder if the discussion would have been very different if we were all sitting around in person with our guitars instead of being limited to typing words on a screen?
|
Edited by - mike2jb on 09/01/2007 8:11:04 PM |
|
|
|
noeau
Ha`aha`a
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 8:21:33 PM
|
Excellent points made by everyone so far. This kine discussion I can sink my teeth into..I think that if one is trying to impart specific skills then one should label the parts i.e. define triplets,hammer ons, pull offs and the like but to say that something is or isn't kiho'alu by definition could be entering the realm where I think we should not tread. Just an opinion 'kay?
I not dropping names but Aunty Alice was a personal friend and I know how she used to go on about the new generation of players. I used to sit in when she tutored Aunty Genoa and it was awesome to see that interaction. But she wasn't trying to fix the style in stone. Gabby et,al. had a lot of 40's jazz influence and when the Sons of Hawai'i busted out it broke the mold for traditional Hawaiian music as it was known then. The sons were responsible for a resurgence in interest in Hawaiian music then and again with their Christmas album in the 70's. Not all the Sons stuff was in slack key. So the criticism by some purists then was due to their changing lanes so to speak and introducing a new genre of Hawaiian music. I may be digressing here but I think an attempt is being made that there were precedents to defining the music. And if that is the case then you guys are correct. But while you feel a need to define and categorise i"ll be under the tree playing my kika. |
No'eau, eia au he mea pa'ani wale nō. |
Edited by - noeau on 09/01/2007 8:22:19 PM |
|
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 04:19:08 AM
|
OK, I guess that I am going to annoy many of you still further.
Much of my research (when I was doing it) had to do with a kind of academic (academic: not only mathematical) categorization called Set Theory. It is quite apparent to me that a lot of of the problems in the discussion going on in this thread has to do with the unspoken assumption of "Classical" sets, the kind that philospher/mathematicians like Bertrand Russell dealt with - an object is either in or it is out, according to a set assignment rule (or set of rules, i.e., the rule reduces to an answer that is binary: 0 or 1, yes or no. However, there are perfectly valid (mathematically and logically, and even from an engineering standpoint) types of sets called "Non-Standard". Two of them (there are others, as well) that can be applicable to this kind of discussion are "Fuzzy" sets and "Cover" sets. They have been used for "Real World" applications where distinctions between objects are *inherently* imprecise. Both allow for partial set membership as well as membership in many other sets/categories simultaneously. Their membership rules are "functions" (continuous gradations of various sorts) rather than a single value like [0,1], AND the functions can be multivariate. They differ only in their "calculus" - the mechanisms for figuring out combinations of attributes, etc.
So, is Andy "tall"? Is Shaq "tall"? Yes to both, but by differing degrees. Compared to Reid, Andy is "quite" tall; compared to Reid, Shaq is "extremely" tall. It is also true that the words in quotes can be quantified, if you care to take the trouble. Is Reid a Haole? The answer will be "mostly", because Reid has a whole lot of ancestors, a few of whom were Asian - so Andy and I are both Pake (to differing degrees). I bet you didn't know that Andy :-) BTW, many rice cookers use Fuzzy set theory (on a chip) to produce cooked rice that is acceptable to most Asians, and many washing machines use the same chip functions (programmed slightly differently) to produce acceptably clean clothes.
Of course, Russell put his finger(s) on the other problems arising in this thread: such as the propensity of people to appreciate or not appreciate the analysis of what they are doing and the World around them. I fall in to the analytic camp set - *mostly*, with a value around .9. I also have a very low set membership value in the set that likes to discuss the original question - about .001 +/- .0005. So, since I performed the calculus that included the 2 values according to the "mostly" proper function, I wrote this post.
...Reid (sometimes) |
Edited by - Reid on 09/02/2007 04:22:38 AM |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 06:08:01 AM
|
Baby Aristotelian, eh Reid? How's your desk?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Defining Slack key
