Frustrated
Frustrated
14:05 on Thursday, January 11, 2007
|
|
|
Re: Frustrated
19:47 on Friday, January 12, 2007
|
|
|
Re: Frustrated
09:36 on Wednesday, January 17, 2007
|
|
|
Re: Frustrated
14:14 on Wednesday, February 7, 2007
|
|
|
jcrants (1 point)
|
This may be the only time I post on this forum, but I just had to comment.
I recently started a rapidly lengthening thread at the Delcamp classical guitar forum lamenting the abundance of classical guitarists who think they can learn their art without lessons, technical exercises, etc. I was wondering why the guitar is so uniquely plagued by people who expect to play well without paying some dues. It's a relief to see that even the viola has this problem.
I love the viola, as a listener. It has a beautiful sound and (I think) an ideal range. But it seems to serve primarily as accompaniment in classical pieces for multiple instruments. I would think you'd have to be either a serious musician or a fourth grader to start into it. You shouldn't have the "I wanna be Eric Clapton--NOW" phenomenon.
The need for lessons should be obvious. As technically challenging as classical guitar can be, I was able to make a reasonably pleasing note on mine the first time I plucked a string. The one time I tried to play a violin (no one's ever let me try their viola), I could only elicit a faint, raspy, horrible croak. Having read Arnold Steinhardt's "Violin Dreams," it's my impression that you'd have a hard time doing much better than that without a teacher.
So, if you really want to learn the viola, even as someone who's never touched the instrument, I BEG you to reconsider your decision not to take lessons. Otherwise, I think you can expect to be nothing BUT "Frustrated."
|
|
|
|
Re: Frustrated
18:25 on Wednesday, February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|