The unaided eye

See Vees ("CV"s)

It's quite common for me to get emails from people keen to trumpet to the world on the subject of their forthcoming engagements and general wonderfulness. This is fine inasmuch as I'm delighted if they are doing well, etc., whoever they may be, but I do find the biographies slightly aggravating.

All publicity is naturally one-sided, and if it is relevant it can only refer to the event at hand (things must be excluded). We understand that, while professional qualifications and accolades may be mentioned, criminal convictions and misdemeanours might not. "The greatest I have ever heard", not "Have you considered the trombone?"

That's fine, and we know how to read CVs to detect what they are really concealing. You know that "Sublime." (New York Times) suggests one thing, while "Sublime." (Detroit Arc-Welders Monthly) doesn't necessarily imply the same. "Great!" (Maxim Vengerov) is a single syllable taken from many which could indicate Mr. Vengerov thinks you are indeed great, or something quite different - "Great! Doughnuts!"

Did you know that you are just as good even if no-one ever praises you? Most people like to hear good things about themselves, some people often don't hear anything good, but I think the one person you should be able to rely on is yourself. That doesn't mean it's just you against them all (Every man for himself, or "Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle"), but that you know if you've done your best or not, you know what you need to improve, and that any failure is not because you are a failure, but because you have not succeeded completely YET! I hope you think that way, and if not, you can start now.

It's good to have good "quotes" or reviews. (It doens't mean anything, but it is a sign of something and at least shows that someone recommends you). It's rather sad to have good reviews from puny sources. ("It was as if Brahms sat down at the piano himself" - Salt Lake City Catering Gazette).

All in all, I'm in favour of truthfulness in CVs. "Studied with X" should mean exactly that - not the same thing as "had some lessons with X" or perhaps "watched X's DVD training course twice".

I think what aggravates me the most is the matter of prizes. You know, I've won a couple of prizes. I mention them in programme biographies and things. That's because it's true and relevant. It doesn't mean I'm good! Who knows, it may mean the opposite! I admit, of course, that I will generally want to show my best (or least worst) side in publicity materials - this is fine. But it's very lazy and a bit dishonest to, er, rephrase things in your favour. Have you heard of this?

"Won the Tchaikovsky Competition Prize" (He won the 100th Prize but it's true, it was A prize though perhaps not THE prize?)

"Was awarded the first prize" (Yes, last place is normally awarded first. Different to being awarded First Prize...)

And so on and on. Anyway, you get the idea. Watch out for this measly rewording of the truth!

I guess people want recognition, don't they. Well here are my tips (time to get tough!)

1. If you want to be recognised, WORK HARD and TRY YOUR ABSOLUTE BEST then something may happen.

2. If you wish you could win a prize then WIN SOMETHING. Come on! Winning is the only way to win, look in the dictionary!

3. Please, it doesn't matter what you won or didn't win. Just show the things you care about, as only you can, and you should do fine.

4. Tell the truth! It's OK to make a nice story out of it, as long as it's still the truth, After all, it's the story of your adventure!

If somebody tried hard and got 5th place, I like to hear about it! But as for exaggerations and vaguenesses like "top prizes" and the (fictional) examples above, I don't like to hear about it. The end.

Ah well, anyway, everybody wins my prize. What I have cleverly not mentioned is that there are several categories, hee hee...

The Great Interpreters

People think they have to discover something about themselves that they then put into the music they play. They think they have to have something to say, or some special way of saying it.

Maybe they think that because they see "the great interpreters" playing and see that it's very distinctive. There is some unique character there that you would recognise immediately no matter what they were playing.

Now, a good player has learned how to play well - they were not always able to play as well as that, they had to learn - but the basic character you hear was always in them from the beginning.

So what does somebody do who thinks they are not one of the great interpreters? How can they improve?

As I said, one way people try to do it is by "putting themselves into the music". But is that really what Glenn Gould or Sviatoslav Richter were doing? It's obviously them playing, you know immediately with no doubt. And the uniqueness comes from them. But the reason for it is that that's the way the music flows through their system. It's not something they add, it's a live connection to the music direct. On a bad day, they would tell you they were not connected, but on a good day the difference is that there is less of "them" and more of the music.

So the answer is not to add more of yourself. That is adding more ego. What is important, you or what you are playing? What is more important, telling the audience something you already know or discovering something new? Showing your heart or just pretending?

If you don't feel you are great, don't worry because the great people weren't great either. They thought they were rubbish. I'm telling you.

If you think you are good, you are wrong. If you think you are bad, you are wrong too. The only answer is to keep looking. Even if it's going well, there is still more to find. And if it is going badly, that's an excellent sign because you know you have got somewhere to go.

How to get better? How to get great?

Don't try to add things. Take things away. The more you put in, the less of the composer we are hearing.

Can you control your beating heart and the allocation of hormones and adrenalin and blood and electric communications in your body? I don't think so. So don't interfere.

The little "I" is not much help. All it can do is be selfish, which gets it a few advantages but only in the short term. The big "I" is a genius and you find it by being interested in what is not you.

For example the music. You have the score - read it! Enjoy it! The composer had a special reason for writing it and that reason still exists but we have to discover it. He saw something special and important. Now you have to show people where to look to find it themselves. Point in the direction. Or even carry them there. It's all in the music. READ IT!

And you know if you get it right or wrong, and you know if you don't know enough, and you know what you have to practise. You are the one who learns to get better, nobody can tell you how to be good. But people will help you. Everybody knows something nobody else knows - that's why there's more than one person in the world. That's why we need you!

Don't try so hard, try LESS HARD! But try your best! Your improvement will depend on how hard you look for the answers. Plus, bear in mind that you already know all the answers....if you look....

Chain of Command

Godowsky was a genius. A self-taught genius - the only kind there is, of course.

He learned how to do anything at all on the piano, and invented some new things too. If you want to have a lesson with Godowsky, try playing any of his music. It has lots of fingerings and helpful comments written in, so it's very instructive as playing music by a great pianist always is. Of particular note are his Studies on the Etudes of Chopin, which, since they are more difficult than Chopin's originals, raise the standard of piano playing in a rather helpful way.

Heinrich Neuhaus was Godowsky's student. There was a great teacher for you. And he was a great player too, though he spent most of his time teaching. You can learn a lot from his book The Art of Piano Playing. What he says seems obvious though, so you have to keep coming back to the book over many years to appreciate its value.

Then Neuhaus had a student called Sviatoslav Richter. He was good too!

Each of these people had their own talent, but it was helped by meeting one of the others. Destiny somehow allows people to look after each other.

Godowsky set off one day to find out how to play the piano, and look what happened!

Richter wasn't really a teacher but look what he did for us. If you can't learn from any of that, there's a problem somewhere!

Thanks very much to those three men, then. Thank you!

Music of the Future

"Who can ever say that something which has no end has now reached its end? Small-minded people have always wanted to place a full stop after every genius. After Mozart, if we want to stick to the last-but-one."

Johannes Brahms, letter to Clara Schumann, 11 October 1857

What Lurks Outside

Before history began, so we are told, dangers outside were rife. The vicious Sabre-toothed Tiger (ancestor of door-to-door insurance salesmen and cold-callers) provided continuous threats to existence. Fires, floods, and epidemics cast their nets of peril far and wide.

Today we have caves, of a sort, to keep us safe. In cities they keep us a bit too safe sometimes - personally I prefer the idea of being somewhere nice in the outside to the idea of being insulated in a little rabbit coop. Though I do live in a house! It's highly convenient, I admit!

So to get away from it all, I only had to step outside and look for some fresh air.

Now that has changed!

Anti-smoking laws and so on mean it's getting pretty bad to be outside anywhere near people, especially in London! So much cigarette smoke everywhere! And staying inside isn't necessarily better since the smoke all blows back in through the doors!

Having to go outside to smoke is probably not too annoying in the summer. I wonder how people will feel in the winter?

From 1st July 2007 in England you are not allowed to smoke in public places such as bars and restaurants. A vicar is not allowed to smoke in his (or her) study if people visit regularly! Fines are of the order of £50 (€70, $100) or £2,500 if a business allows it! I was quite pleased to hear that smoking is going to be less popular, because it is not particularly popular with me. It's already very expensive so I'm not sure it's good to take all that money from people in fines. It's not necessarily good to prohibit things, but smoking is different to drinking, where after all, the drink stays in its glass and we are not affected by "passive drinking".

I think this is all supposed to stop people from smoking, perhaps in the hope that health might improve. Governments used to make a lot of money from tobacco taxes etc but they are realising that, like the slave trade, there is less and less mileage in it.

It's a nuisance now that the outside is full of cigarette smoke. It might be better to get it out in the open though.

I don't really care if there is a law against it (though I was rather pleased when I heard)...I mainly care that people will stop doing something that they don't really enjoy. If smoking is a good thing, smoke on! I'm sure there are worse things...but I feel like this one is fairly nasty. What about a nice breath of air?

Aaah....

Fear

The things you fear are like shadows in the half of the room that you don't want to see. Your half is not in shadow, because you have chosen to look at it. But what's in the other half?

There is a monster under the bed, and one in the wardrobe too. Dark things come out at night and we clothe them in our own fear.

But in the daylight we can see what is there.

The things we fear are everywhere because we don't want to look at them. So when there is darkness - under the bed, in the wardrobe, or somewhere else we are not sure about - our fears appear. Whenever you sense some unknown thing coming towards you (in space or in time), you shape it into the thing you are afraid of.

The only question is, what is really there?

I think the answer has to be, there is something there. Or, there appears to be something there. What though? It's our choice whether we look closely or not.

Let's think of a situation. General fears around this area (where I am now) are: being robbed, being attacked somehow, losing things, or fear of a general disaster (of whatever type is popular in the media at the moment). Let's take fear of non-specific attack or robbery. OK, so you are afraid of that happening. When it is dark you are more afraid. That may be reasonable because there are fewer people around in the dark. However, that's rather the product of the fear of the dark that we talked about before. If it's dark then you put something there. If you can't see what is there, you imagine what could be there.

As uncertainty increases, this hypothetical person we are talking about gets more afraid. He creates more threats as his knowledge decreases. We can see that fear of attack gets worse when we have less information: if it's dark; if the place is unfamiliar; if we are alone.

However! We can do better than that!

Let's forget about the BlockbusterAttackMode way out. This approach says that the more prepared I am for attack, the less I will be affected by it. Look at these people, they learn a million-and-one-ways of defending themselves, nine-and-a-half exotic martial arts, carry six guns, a knife, and a flamethrower. And that's just for looking out of the window! Are they less afraid? No, and I think they are becoming a bit of a threat themselves actually. Yes, they did get more prepared, that's sort of taking a step, but they did not solve the problem.

The only problem was the original fear, fear created by the darkness we mentioned at the beginning. Then we were talking about a real darkness (the one under the bed, for example), but it's really the same thing if it is physical or a kind of mental darkness which comes from the unknown.

So given that we are afraid of something, we can see the following. First, we are creating more threats wherever we are unsure about something. We talked of a fear of attack but it can really be anything. There are plenty of uncertainties so there are plenty of fears to choose from!

Have you noticed that now? Whenever there is uncertainty, you turn it into a threat. Yes, I agree, the accident could happen now, your job could disappear this week, that heart attack you've been expecting could have happened five minutes ago. But does it make sense to be on panic alert all the time? OK, statistically there is probably a chance of these things happening. Probably each of them happened to somebody in the world yesterday. But you are not a supercomputer. The human mind is very powerful (or capable of being) but you are not helping matters by using that power to imagine how badly things could go wrong. Getting a scratch that goes septic and you die - chances are 2,987,453 to one. A chance. Yes, every second. Even twice a second! All the same...I don't want to upset your reasoning process, but it may not be your day for misfortune. Sorry, it must just be bad luck, I guess.

First of all, you are seeing your fears when you cannot see clearly. You can solve that by: recognising what you are afraid of, and trying to be objective (learning to see other sides of a situation, not just the one you are used to seeing). Low Grade Panic Alert is rather a vague state so it helps to identify what the perceived threat is. What are you afraid of? Write it down. Ok I think it is slightly less frightening already. Slightly is a good start. Then by learning to "see through other eyes" you can see where you went wrong before. Illusion is the product of isolation. "I'm afraid of..." is already wrong because it starts with "I". You think you are separate and you have your own problems. But you must be connected to someone else in some way. You have seen another person before, right? Right, so you are not really alone. Then who is this "I"? It is the fearing part. The part that does not fear is called "We" or "Us". Learn about it.

Finding ways to attack a problem will never solve it. Because you are afraid of attack, you are always attacking. Don't fight, invite! Your hostility makes hostility outside you. If you welcome the world and its chances of...failure or...success, then you are shining a bit of light on your fear and you will have more chance of seeing what is really there.

What is really there? A few naughty people doing naughty things. But not all the time. They want things the easy way and can't be bothered to put much effort in. And accidents do happen, but not to everbody and not every day, and when they do we have to stop and think how we got into that situation and maybe learn how to avoid it next time. Health problems do occur but not every minute. A system under stress has to release the stress somehow, and the results can seem unpleasant. But symptoms that come out are the product of something called health. If you are worried about your health then you must know why you are worried. Is it something you are doing wrong? If it is then you can change it. Your body is the only one you have and looking after it will help you a lot. Your life is your life and can change this world for the better. Our world is our world, too, though we are supposed to look after it rather than drain it of goodness. These are all good things. The bad things exist but they are not everywhere. They may not even be bad! They are probably just "things" until you decide they are going to be bad.

We should be afraid. There is a lot to be afraid of. But it is not meant to freeze us in our steps before we have started the race. We are not meant to stop climbing before the first peak has come into view. Fear is allied with caution, respect, care, and guides experiment. Each of those ensures the harvest comes in safe next year. They may mean the ship gets into port safe and sound. The eggs all get back from market in one piece. But where do the plans come from? What makes experiment? Total caution would have zero result. Now I have a message for you. You are not the victim of a dice game, neither coldly and without intent, nor maliciously twisting the threads of your fate. You are not the victim. You have the power to imagine danger for a very good reason - because of the power to imagine. Why do you have that power? To stop? To shut the shop and sink the ship, to shatter and fail and founder and grind to a halt? Or to see in your mind's eye what lies behind the hill, what lives on the other side of the world, what breathes where there is no air and swims without water?

What crawls in the morning, stands upright at noon, and crawls again at evening? The answer is man, from baby to adult to old age, but we should rather ask: What asks riddles? Who invents the impossible? The answer is the mind of man but what that really means is something we are still learning. Don't expect to read about it in the newspaper. With these things, it's better to try and find out for yourself. Believe me.

Now you are brave again!

You only got to be brave by admitting that fear exists. Well done. Now do more!

Do It Immediately!

I wish that every time I think of something I want to write about here, it could somehow get written straight from my brain. But I don't think the Internet is that advanced yet.

I very much think that every time something comes into your mind it's for a good reason so that's the time to go and attend to it. If itis something useful, that is.

Saving it for later often means it gets forgotten about!

However, computers do get turned off from time to time (at least once a day, for example) and if that is the same time that I'm having an idea, then...it explains why there hasn't been much to read lately!

So that's something to work on, too. I wonder what I can do?

The Language of Music

It's hard to explain impossible things to you.

But the reason one person writes to another is that there is something he needs to tell that person, something which he thinks the other person doesn't know. The only problem is that when a fact is an unknown fact, it is hard to understand. In fact it may be impossible to understand - it will take a lot of problems and hard work to finally see what it was. Sometimes, indeed, you can't just tell someone the answer they need, because they won't understand without actually discovering the answer for themselves. That's why we have symbols like mazes and spirals. Labyrinths were popular in ancient art. Popularity comes when something resonates with many people, no matter what the intention behind it. In this case, the Labyrinth is a journey you must follow until it is solved - there is not normally a short way through.

The Labyrinth is a part of the ear, too.

When we hear music we can identify patterns. Without them, it would probably be noise. But as long as we can fit the sound to a pattern we feel there is some sense behind it. We keep creating possible patterns to fit to the stimulus, trying to find a match for one or more templates that we have stored, or creating a new one based on the incoming material. So although I said we try to find a fit, really we are creating the pattern that we hear. The sound is what it is, but the pattern is our own. Listen to noise and see how soon you start to hear words. They may not be there as such, but we are looking (listening) for them.

So we may find there is sense at the first hearing of a piece of music. That depends on what experience we have. Whatever the case, we will try and we will find something. But you might end up saying, no, I just couldn't make anything of it. Like the ladies in the Wigmore Hall who laughed at the 'wrong notes' in a Webern piece - which was written in 1899! I was there, you can believe me.

There are "dissonant" cases where the music is too different from the listener's internal templates and antagonism results. Of course, the dissonance is not necessarily a question of some dissonance in the music's harmonic idiom - I was referring to the dissonance between what they are hearing and what they might expect to make sense, or what they have heard before and got used to. But on the whole the music one hears is mostly more or less familiar - you tend to recognise it as music, and more particularly as "our music". Statistically we are more likely to hear music we already recognise, of course - because statistically we will stay in more or less the same place.

Recognition comes then, somewhat or a lot. You can tell there is a loud bit coming up because it starts getting louder. It started quiet so you know it will be quiet for a bit. Or after learning a bit more, you know that if it is quiet, it might stay quiet or might SUDDENLY get loud. You start to learn what the options might be. And if you know a bit about music you might here where the harmony is going. You might recognise the sort of "subject" the composer is thinking of. Of course there is not a subject, it is music not words, but there are associations and special patterns we notice. It might be something clear like the sound of a bird (the cuckoo in Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony) or something ambiguous like the sound of water or wind in a Schubert song. It might be a topic like "military" (Chopin Polonaise) or "exotic" (Debussy Pagodas) or "academic" (Handelian fugue in Mozart or Beethoven). Whatever it is, you learn, and then finally you understand. It can take repeated hearings to get there though - although most do not try after the first attempt. And sometimes there is no attempt! (What are the chances of success there I wonder?)

All of these insights come with practise and understanding. Some come with learning and knowledge.

They say that a child's mind is a clear mind. They say a child will see the obvious when everyone else convinces themselves otherwise or trips themselves up in tangles of thought and blind guesses. That's why there is the famous story of The Emperor's New Clothes. Maybe it's funny, I don't know. I'm sure no-one believes it could ever really happen. But that's the shock you get when you realise it's happening all the time. Look at what people are doing around you now. A little or a lot, helping or un-helping, but they are certainly taking a lot of different approaches to the maze of their life. Certainly the mazes are different, but can all the people be right? The child says: I thought you had to get to the centre. (Does that mean it is easier than it seemed?)

Yes, you try to hear some sense in the sound coming in. But we are in luck, because the person who created it all - the composer - put sense in at the beginning. So we are in with a fighting chance!

I am convinced that we can understand music purely by paying attention to what the composer has put in it. That's the approach I took when I wrote about Evryali, and it's how I try to understand music on a daily basis. The significance of this is that it doesn't matter how much you know before you get started. Knowledge came down to us because other people noticed things; that means we can notice them too. But it will take a long time if we try to understand the knowledge AS WELL as the music. That's two jobs, you see. Fortunately I have tried to understand the music, afflicted with only a slight knowledge of the technical processes involved. (That's not a joke, I really don't know much!). That's why I'm here today to tell you where to look.

The first time I noticed something important about music was in a Mozart symphony last year. It wasn't a good performance (maybe that's why I noticed it). The symphony was called "The Jupiter", but I don't think that matters because I don't like the "I know it all" approach to music: Ah, The Jupiter, yes, of course. Beethoven's second Razumovsky Quartet, yes. Opus 106, a masterpiece. It does annoy me rather, you see this is talking about music without mentioning the music. Perhaps it is not talking about the music? I know it's helpful to use labels so we can know what is being discussed, but these are the names on the filing cabinet. They are the names on the files. They are not the contents of the files. Inside are lovely golden sounds without names. Songs without words that sing in my heart.

I forget exactly what it was in that Mozart symphony. I think it was a movement in the harmony. I realised he was doing something really funny, moving somewhere no-one could have predicted. I wondered why no-one was laughing. I think it was because they were hearing "A Mozart symphony" - the one in their heads, perhaps. You don't need Sherlock Holmes to tell you that the best Mozart symphony comes from Mozart, not from us. By some twist of fate, that was actually what I was hearing. Yes, no incompetence on the part of the conductor or players prevented me from hearing what the composer had put into the music. It was all there, and it always is in any piece or performance.

Music is highly cultural, you know. There is a lot to learn about. But as it happens you don't particularly need to learn any of it. If you are responsible and care about the music and why it exists then I think it won't hurt to try learning a bit. But you have to listen first.

I listened, and I am now telling you this:

A master composer knows his job and tries to get better at it.

The best composers didn't stop when they had had enough, or when they thought they were good enough. They continued changing.

In these cases, the golden secret inside centre of the music was what led the creator - it was what they were trying to communicate! In the other cases, the composer got tired and his forms started writing themselves, though there could still be flashes of inspiration. It could never dry up completely (some music leads me to doubt this but it is true)

The secret was called ecstasy. Did the composer want to be a composer, or could he not stop being a composer? "Ecstasy" is a word that means being outside yourself. What is outside? Whatever we don't already know. Other people. Other places. Other ideas. Mistakes. Answers. Genius.

Whatever you think about music, I think we all have to agree there is some kind of vision involved in it. Someone wants to communicate something, and that is their vision. It can be predictable, clichéed, or previously impossible - a surprising thing of brilliance and power. With skill, the vision becomes clearer.

That vision is present in every part of the work, and through the opposition between the parts we can appreciate what it is. (The word for an arrangement of parts is composition)

You won't at first know what a piece of music is saying. It's important to remember that it isn't saying anything. As long as you can say it in words, you are not there. You can talk about it but you have to live it to see it.

With repeated slow careful exposure to music you can learn to feel what it really is. Your mind is not understanding it, your heart is not feeling it, but these senses may be involved.

Remember what I am telling you: it is real. Music is real. There is a real reason for it. It is not something in a book or on a CD, it is something outside you, coming in. Also remember that if you were lost in a labyrinth, you might forget your journey. The outside might seem dark and unfriendly. Think then of what it's like to find the way through the maze. Find the end, and you see you were the one who had gone outside. Really the music is inside. People who don't listen are stuck outside. When we hear it truly, we are all joined up again. Or starting to be.

Primo Levi was in a prison camp. Then he sent us a message through his books so that the world would change. James Clavell was in a prison camp. He did the same. He did a good thing too, because he loved the people who imprisoned him. That is how he was set free. Any others who still hated them were still prisoners, weren't they? And Ronald Searle was in the same camp. He had to carefully hide his drawings while he was there. He sent us messages too.

There is a well-known analogy that life is like a bird flying through a lighted hall. It is light for a moment, then it is dark again. That's silly, because although I can see what it means, I think they are looking at it from the wrong side. Think what the other birds are thinking. Wot is that bird doing stuck inside that dark hall when we are all out here?

I spoke of prisoners because when we are stuck or lost, what we need most is a way out. Sometimes it is all we can do just to survive. There isn't much sign of life outside the prison. But one day a message comes.

To understand the message is all we need to do.

It is not obvious. But it is there. If you can love it, then you are hearing it.

This is the language of music.

How to Learn a Piece of Music

How to Learn a Piece of Music
(How to Learn a Piano Piece)

Right, I've been learning music for 22 years now and I have come to some conclusions.

This is my current method for learning a new piece.

1. Familiarise
2. Memorise
3. Practise

That's it! Here's how you do it:

1. Familiarise. This means something very simple. First of all, it means going through the piece very slowly and carefully to see what the difficulties are in that work. If it is a complicated piece, then you can go slowly! Don't worry, even if you sound like an idiot while you are learning it, that's fine because you will be able to play it one day. It's different for show-offs who want to sound good from the beginning, because they never really learn their pieces. Yes, they will always sound like an idiot. Fortune favours the brave, as the saying goes, and here it also favours those who can admit they have problems - the problems are the difficult bits in your piece, and they will improve as soon as you admit they are there, understand what the specific difficulties are, and solve them!
You will need a nice clear copy of the music. Play through the piece slowly and carefully, listening to everything. Then you can see what is difficult. There is no such thing as a difficult piece, only difficult places in a piece. (Some pieces have a lot of difficult places!) So there will be a few bars in the whole piece that you find hard (or impossible). Now you know what to practise. You know what you find difficult, so you also probably know what is easy for you. These parts you can learn AFTER you've solved the real problems. Also you need to solve the difficult parts from the start because it will take longer to get used to them, longer than playing things you already can do, for example.
If you find the piece very difficult you might take a long time over this stage. In that case, put it away and come back to it as many times as you like until you feel confident.
There isn't time to discuss technical problems today, but I will say that a very important part of solving the technical side of the piece is getting a good fingering. Again, this can take a long time sometimes. There is a scale in fourths on page two of Chopin's Third Sonata, and that's taken me a year to get the fingering for. I'm sure you will do better than that!

2. Memorise. This is best if you can do it away from the piano, because playing what you are memorising can be a bit distracting. Also if you are using my method, then you haven't actually learned how to play the piece yet, so that could cause some problems if you are trying to play it! Some people don't see the music in their head, they just follow their muscles and the sound as they play. If they say they can't imagine the printed page then I have to believe them, particularly if they don't make any mistakes. But I know that if I can see the page in my mind then I won't make a mistake because I know what to play. So that seems good to me.
How to memorise could also be discussed at length. I would say it is about patterns, and where patterns change. Also the direction of the "story" (that could mean harmony, change in texture, etc.) is a way of remembering where you are in the work as a whole. I put a ring around anything I remember wrongly, as well as things that don't fit patterns (a chord that is different the second time round, and so on). Then you will see the ring in your mind, too. You will remember!

3. Practise. This means practise. Get used to things. Learn where your hands go. Understand the music better. Practise bits so you can play them at a faster tempo. That way, not much can go wrong at the right speed! If you are stretched to your limits in performance there could be a stress there. Try to escape this by admitting what is difficult and taking time to work it out.

Well I'm sure there is a lot more I could say, but that's all for today! I will discuss specific pieces next time. Let me know if you have one you'd like me to talk about!

Precise

Often, when I hear a pianist playing, on the radio or somewhere, I notice that they are trying very hard to make the notes absolutely even. Not exactly like a robot, but certainly not like something natural - because natural things, while they can be similar, always are a little bit different from each other. Don't they say no two snowflakes are the same?

I think this kind of playing is the result of a bit of a misunderstanding. You see, when people learn the piano they get the idea that to play evenly is a good thing. Certainly, to play unevenly can be a bad thing. But what I think is really wanted is the ability to play evenly. That means that it is good to be able to control the sound you are making. Since the hardest thing is to play absolutely evenly, everyone tries to do that. But then the problem is that when you get to play some actual music, it doesn't sound good that way. It sounds clean - but that's not good enough!

You see, music flows and moves in a natural way. The sea washes up the beach and on to the rocks but the tide isn't the same height each time. Wouldn't it be a bit weird if it were? Would it make sense if actors pro nounced ev e ry word abso lute ly even ly?

It's the same with music.

Overlearning

Welcome back!

I have a lot of music to learn for three concerts. It ranges from solo pieces (11, though thankfully ten of those only last one minute) to duos, small chamber works and some others, the maximum line-up being ten players.

This is about three years of repertoire to learn. The first concert is in one week. The next two are three weeks later!

I think the most important thing to do in emergency learning like this (ha ha, as if this situation happens to everybody) is to maximise the number of times you "visit" each piece. This means the number of times you practise it and also the number of times you look through it, learning it without playing.

In one week, or three weeks, it's impossible to develop the level of familiarity you will need to perform music fully comfortably. For example Josef Hofmann recommended to learn a piece and then forget about it, and to do this three times, before performing it in public. Doing this embeds the notes and movements in your very long-term memory. What imprints something on the memory is how often you prompt the brain to remember what it once learned. If the thing is no use, it will be forgotten. If it is important it will be needed again, and when it is the pathways will be traced over again and checked to see if they correspond with what you did last time, as well as modified (learning, remembering, improving). However, three weeks isn't long enough to affect this kind of memory properly. Unless your memory is very good and experienced.

Still, in the short term we can get familiar with music over a few weeks. It should be enough for now (it will certainly be the maximum possible in the time available). Come back in three months and maybe everything will be forgotten. Again, it depends on experience.

So to remember something well you have to go there and go away again many times. That means that practising is important but also not practising! It needs time to settle and needs to be reinforced later. All the time you are away from your instrument your brain is sorting through what you learned. That's why when I accompanied for 35 recitals at the RAM one year I was still hearing the music six months later - even pieces I had only played twice! There hadn't been enough time to process it all so I was doing the equivalent of "waking dreaming" such as can happen with lack of sleep (lack of processing time, just as in my case). Hallucinating, maybe!!

I doubt I will be in that type of situation this month. I will try to relax and let my brain do the work. The mind at rest is more useful!

However, I will have to practise!

PS It is possible to do "emergency learning" as Sviatoslav Richter did, for example learning a work in one week before the performance. This is very concentrated work, and is something of a specialism. In such a case it is very helpful to have only one piece to learn!

Did you know, if something is learned very well then it is hard to forget it. With real practise a lot of time is saved. The main principle is never to let something go by if you a) made a mistake, b) nearly made a mistake or c) felt tense in a particular passage (sign of an uncertainty). I learnt this from Ferruccio Busoni, who wrote something similar in his ten "Study Rules for the Pianist" which I might tell you about sometime.

Self

Can a bee think about itself?

No because it is not a bee, it is bees. It is part of the hive. And a lost bee is nobody. That's why they stick together. Yes, they are sticky, and not just because of honey!

In other animals you can find that individuals are more capable of acting on their own. There can be safety in numbers. A wolf doesn't attack the whole herd, it looks for the weak ones who could become separated from the others.

Then again, herding is not always good. There is a thing called panic. When animals flee for their lives, you can't ask one to stop and give you its opinion on the current fleeing (just for the cameras). This is not called panic, it is called survival. However something similar can happen to animals that normally have a high degree of self-awareness and rationality. Such as humans. Sometimes a panic can start and spread to many people. When it does, it is not very pretty. The way it spreads may be related to herding instinct.

Today we don't live as we did. We live in ones, twos, threes, or fours. You can find more, but this is the general situation, particularly in the West. And let's be honest, a herd of four is not much good against wolves. Let's just say, five could be better.

Now think of the wolf. He has to eat. It is hard for him - probably harder than for the big herd. And think of the herd. A herd of sick animals is not much use to anybody, so what the wolf does is promoting a healthy system - the predator and the prey are antagonistic but add up to make a whole that keeps going.

Of course we don't like it if people get eaten. On the whole, they don't. We have better technology than the predators, and they keep away.

So what's the problem? The problem is that we are not working as a team. You can see this from the news. You can see it everywhere, especially in a city. How many cars driving with a single occupant? How many people trying to make money for themselves? How many arguing or cursing each other at the slightest provocation? How many cursing each other under their breath automatically just for being the wrong sort of person? And then sometimes people don't like themselves either. Can you imagine?

But still it is possible to see good behaviour. A lot of people look out for each other. In an accident people will want to help, just as some will want to get away to safety, and a few might think to take advantage os the situation and pick a pocket or two. Or worse. On the whole we know that humans want to help. That's why we have the word "humanity". Yet we also know that it is possible for the humanity to disappear.

It's a mixed bag of opportunities. But we can see that the best case is the one where we retain a feeling of being part of a wider whole (herding) yet do not surrender our self-control in the event of panics or rumours. You see, the bee has strength because she is part of the hive. But a weak bee weakens the hive. To humans, that's the value of individuality or the idea of self. Strong parts make a strong whole. But we have to consider what would be the best case for each part. Too much concentration on self and the "hive" is compromised as people start to fight for themselves. No self-will and there is no "herd" to make any progress - there is anarchy.

No, it is true, it's good to develop your ability to be part of the team. If you can identify with others then you will have more of a sense of identity, not identity as an individual but as part of a bigger family. And you will find that this is helpful to everyone. If you throw a rock at someone and every time it hits you in the back - you might stop throwing rocks. And every time you made something nice happen for someone else, something nice happens for you? Yes, that might encourage you too. Every person who identifies with someone else and does something positive for them is giving that person a little bit of freedom and power to help others as well. In a hostile environment people get hostile. But when we see no weapons the humanity starts to come back.

The idea of identification appears in many religions and spiritual systems. You can find out about that, but today it is not important. Today we just need to know that thinking of things and people outside yourself can start the ball rolling for them and benefit all of us.

The word for that is "love" and the problem is that people think they know what it means but have forgotten that they used just to do it without thinking about it. Now love means something from a TV soap opera - I love you so marry me or I'll burn your house down etc etc. It's not real love, is it. It's just self-interest.

But what is self? It is something between each little bee and each little hive on the way to all the bees together and the honey too. The little parts were made to love each other and work together. Can that be why honey is so sweet?

So now you know what self means. It means we can be less selfish and start lookng after ourselves. Speaking for myself, I think we will agree!

Be good to yourself, my dears.

Chimp Champs Chomp Chumps?

Bonobos are interesting. They are a type of Chimpanzee - the type that has the most DNA in common with humans (98% is the quoted figure).

They know who they are if they see themselves in a mirror. That is called self-awareness, and we have it, though we don't make much use of it on the whole.

There is (or was) some debate about classification. Are Bonobos so close to us that they should move from Pan paniscus to Homo paniscus, Homo sylvestris, or Homo arboreus - or the humans should re-classify from Homo sapiens to Pan sapiens?

Anyway, the bonobos are not aggressive like the other chimpanzees. Unlike them, bonobos don't do murders or conduct wars - they hardly even eat meat! I always wondered how we evolved - was it through genocide? Did we have to be aggressive to "win"? Or perhaps it was our technology that got us going (the technology, the gift, of self-awareness -and thought and planning)

I wonder if humans really are close to the bonobo. Are we peaceful or aggressive? I know we can be both, and it would be a typical kind of response to bemoan the level and quality of human behaviour as it echoes that of the common chimp. But, well, all those wars that humans have, they are in the newspapers and so on, aren't they? What about you though? Do you do wars? Only sometimes, that's right. Well then. When you are not fighting, you might be more like the bonobo. Maybe humans are more interesting than we thought?

Wind

Today there are many many ways of making things go fast and a long way. But remember the first discovery that sent ships scudding across the horizon into adventure - the wind! Imagine the first time someone saw a leaf blown away and made a sail for his boat. Imagine!

Sailing ships were beautiful, it is true. But steamships and their successors could go in a straight line without having to wait for anything. No more tacking and hoping and clinging to the wind by the skin of your teeth.

So now things go fast all the time. But we are still at sea. And we are not machines. So be glad when the wind drops and you have to rest. And even when the sky seems made of concrete but for a little tiny gap of blue at the top, and there is only the noise of traffic not rushing winds, feel the air around you and look up at the sky and remember!

Set sail for...?

L'Arbre du Ténéré

L'Arbre du Ténéré, the Tree of Ténéré, was the most isolated tree in the world. It stood in the Sahara Desert 400km from any other tree. It survived by tapping the water table 36m below the surface.

All this space around it, yet it was damaged by a lorry sometime in the 1940s or 50s.

Then in 1973 it was knocked down by another driver. Now it is dead.

A metal tree was put in its place - yet to be destroyed by drivers.

Local Colour

I have been wondering about the colour in my photographs. It often seems a bit pale, making me wonder what's going on here when I think of the vibrant colour you sometimes see in glossy panoramic travel photographs and the like. What is the cause of it, I am not sure but I'm confident I will get to the bottom of the situation. Nevertheless, I had a look at some highly thought-of colour photography just to see what the difference was between that and my deckchairs from yesterday (see below).

The colour deckchairs is a picture I like, speaking for myself. I suppose it reminds me of light-hearted seaside England a little bit, as well as being on the other hand part of my view of nature - a conflict between the natural world and what we use it for, more gently considered than cynical, I think. Now the weather was not able to decide what it was doing, alternately a sunny day breaking out of the dark chrysalis of night (as you might say) and the typical English approach that turns an August day a different colour by liberal applications of November rain showers. So in fact the in situ colour was not particularly bright, so in a way this is reflected in the colour you see in the picture. But the point is I am trying to understand how to control the colour: I am happy to have colour-feeling X, Y, or Z but would like to achieve it deliberately, thanks! (Apart from that we might be a little bit over-exposed in the sky at top left, also.)

The issue of controlling the image will become clear, I am sure (I already know you can't fully control anything! That's what makes good pictures a surprise - though you should be able to have technical facility and preparation just as with any artistic endeavour - thinking of the piano here, for one). Whatever is causing whatever-it-is, it will be possible to find out about it, like with anything. Now let's look at what I felt was missing - deep, vibrant colour.

I already know that things that on the surface are rather alluring are not always of much interest once you start thinking about them (all that glisters is not gold, as the saying goes). Again, think of the piano: it's easy to get a particular sound that people love (there are several styles) and keep going for it, but what happens to the music? What music, I'm an artist, comes the answer. So in other words let's not be too worried about making beautiful photographs that are widely admired, and try to show the beauty that already exists in the world rather than adding a more instantly attractive coating.

Let's have a look at a colourful picture. Steve McCurry is a photographer well-known for his use of colour. Here is one of his pictures:



You can see more at the website.

Well there is colour here and it is deep and attractive! And we can look at lots of similar pictures with more or less colour in and have a similar feeling about them. I notice from the website that the pictures they show are from all over the world - well, when I say all over, I mean of course all over except for where "we" live. That means where Steve McCurry lives, and I presume that is North America. The pictures will be consumed by "the West" and will largely be images of things that are outside that. I mean, this is not so bad. Photographs are only worthwhile if they show something nobody has seen before, so that makes sense. Look at his biography too - this is a serious person! My feeling about the colour is that it is telling us that the world outside the cities of the West has something we lack: mystery, the famous exotic magic of far-away places that people have been getting so excited about for so long. Where there is colour, there is life, and city life lacks something that we are trying to find when we say "wow" on seeing one of these pictures. They all have an internal consistency of image, too - the colour is deep and lets deeper levels of association catch on the film grains and their prints. They are good pictures. But basically I felt that colour is here too, that "over there" in India or wherever, the local people do not find their lives so strange or exotic, and that while the strong-coloured pictures will inevitably draw the attention more and sell the photobooks, we shouldn't be distracted by all that. It's bright, alright, but it's not the only kind of life an image can have.

What I think is this: we could go to Afghanistan or on a similar adventure, but we shouldn't forget that it is not the same level of adventure for the people who already live there. Is that to say that it is not really interesting in foreign places? Maybe - most places are mostly the same as each other except for some superficial differences. But on the other hand, there really could be the same level of adventure here as there. It's not less exciting over there, it's more exciting over here! We should be making travel pictures of our own street.

With their own appropriate level of colour of course!

Anyway, colour is good and I'm glad to see some for once. I don't see a lot round here!

NOTE: now I know the sky was simply overexposed! The eye can adjust to wide differences in contrast (bright to dark) but the camera has a more limited range. (November 06)

Distractions

People sometimes ask, after reading something like my last post, what they can do about some or all of the great and terrible events in the world. Well I answered that once, and it seems that my answer is similar now. You can't do anything. Unless you can.

You can do what you can do. But you probably don't believe you can do very much so that is one obstacle. Things are not as bad as all that though. There are certainly some things you are good at now (some people think they are good at nothing, others think they are superior in everything - it is probable that both types are wrong) so you know you can do those things. Hopefully at least some of them are things that can help other people so you are on the way already.

Do you know, there might actually be something useful you can do to help. But probably we aren't sure what that is at this stage. You may have your suspicions (a hidden talent, a forgotten wish?) or may think you are not cut out for great things. You don't have to get your name in the papers to do great things, though. Could be you are great already. (I am telling the truth here - the biggest step is believing me)

Some people get their name in the papers a lot. They are famous and talked-about. We give them responsibility for good and evil things that we also read about in the papers. But have you noticed that the papers don't make a lot of sense? They are ENTIRELY speculative because they are of the moment. But we take the speculation as fact, and fail to notice that it changes the next day. Apparently it is correct to believe statements that have been put into print; less reliable to trust someone's word. (Unless they are famous)

It MIGHT be useful to read about events. Possibly. If you remember that what you're reading always has a particular viewpoint. But reading doesn't mean you are acting. That might seem obvious. But it is easy to imagine that reading today's opinion makes one well-informed and therefore makes one feel one has done one's bit to "set the world to rights". Is it true though?

It takes a while to read the paper. It takes some time to talk about what was in the paper. It takes a lot of energy to carry the beliefs that came from the paper. Let's just accept that not everything is right in the world (yet), that we can't fully know what's going on (probably), that we probably can't change the large-scale happenings, that you can control how you affect yourself and other people, that you can decide to make creative things happen and not destructive ones, that you can be the best person that you already were (under the surface), and not GET DISTRACTED BY CURRENT AFFAIRS!

The most important current affairs are your own current affairs. "Jane Smith orders air strike against husband". "Man declares war on that cat next door". "Twins sign new peace accord".

You are making your own headlines. The difference is, you can change everything about your own news.

Israeli-Lebanese Conflict Protest

Today there was a march in central London largely by Muslims protesting against the actions of Israel in the ongoing Lebanese conflict. Men and women separated as usual, the protest passed through the centre of London in four waves.

Children were represented both in person, carried in the arms of a parent or in pushchairs, and symbolically, shown by the presence of tiny black coffins also carried in the arms of demonstrators.

Pre-prepared orange placards were held up and as each crowd passed it chanted slogans, repeating the words of a few young men in their midst with megaphones, reading from cards.

The sight of the black coffins, both small and man-sized, was the most dramatic aspect, yet for me this visual imagery was matched by the chilling sound of the women's high voices shouting the Takbir, "Allahu Akhbar" (الله أكبر).

Not normally chilling, although sensational media might have us hear it otherwise, the phrase meaning God is Great is traditionally used in a rich variety of circumstances. But today it appeared provocative, the verbal missile of one religion hurled at another. Perhaps I misread the intention, but to my eyes it appeared that this protest was not against war and aggression, seeking conciliation, but was instead a protest against another country, people, and, perhaps, religion.


Other slogans to be heard were "Down With USA" and "George Bush Go To Hell". Perhaps I did not misunderstand after all. It seems unequivocal at least as far as the US is concerned. I could not hear everything they shouted but other chants were less pithy, for example "Death, Destruction, Full of Dark". It may have been more poetic but it didn't make me feel much better.

I don't believe we fully know what is at the root of the tension between Israel and Arabia. Clearly it is difficult. Clearly I wish there would be more understanding. Perhaps this is impossible. I'm sorry to say that I have sympathy for the cultures on both sides of this question. Only sorry because it doesn't seem a very popular viewpoint to take. In a war is it most dangerous to be in the middle?

I should know better than to criticise either side of the conflict - and I do, because I wasn't criticising.

We could potentially learn a lot from both of these religions. I'm sure the greatest winners would be the two cultures themselves, if they could do the same. But they are concerned about their own true possessions (land) and while that is very understandable, to me I do not see that ownership can ever be much more than ink on the map, when all one finds on either side of the line is people and...more people. I will say no more about that.

The procession has passed by now, without incident. I hope the same fortune will befall these simple, hopeful words. (Hopeful that no-one sees this as critical of Islam - which would be as foolish as taunting Israel when we have seen what she can do many times before...)

---

Quizzezzz

Take a quiz!

It might stretch yr brain a bit!

Go here ... mostly they are good.

A Lot On Your Mind

Some people have a lot to think about. They have problems.

One person writes from Germany that her friends and some of her family are stuck in Lebanon, with no access to the outside. The only things coming in are missiles. She says her friend has put up a blog - you can see it here. I don't know if it helps, but it is there, so you can see what it is. (I didn't like it the first time but it made more sense when I looked again.)

That sort of anxiety, the kind that comes from having bits of your city explode all night, is a higher level than most of us are used to. Fear of imminent and unpredictable death is very exacting. I cannot deny that they have a lot on their minds.

Coincidentally, another person writes from Germany to say that she has problems. The future is uncertain, and she can't sleep at night. She has a lot on her mind. But at least she is not in a war situation.

People need help but what help can we give?

And you cannot help them because you too have a lot on your mind.

---

When someone says they are afraid because the future is uncertain, that seems OK to me. I mean the second part is OK: that the future is uncertain. I agree, it is.

What you see coming towards you out of the shadows is unknown. That is more or less given. But to be afraid of this, while understandable, is...not helpful. I am glad that the future is not a given, because that way it can throw anything at me that it wants to. If I could control it totally it would not be as interesting. Even my imagination is not enough for that.

There is uncertainty, but of that one thing at least we can be certain. It isn't a joke! It just shows you that you have nothing to worry about - you KNOW that something surprising is going to happen, sometime. And once you get your life under control you can start to plan things, so it is not a total gamble.

There is still a risk, though! But chance enough that you might win.

----

And in Java they have problems too. Also see my list.

----

So, as you can see, many people need help. In many different ways.

But I think you can see that your problems are not as bad as you thought.

Except they sort of are, because if there is a big problem somewhere in the world then it is our problem. Yet, problems are not as bad as you think. If there were never any problem then nothing would ever improve. Do you see?

The future is never certain, even when we have reached it. That is worth remembering too.

The past? We forgot it. If we remember it, we may have got it wrong but not know.

We only have now. It's a good now. I wonder where it will go next?

Detox Diet Food

I'm not putting you on a detox diet, I'm just telling you which foods are good and which are different from good.

Let me explain.

You need to eat food to give you energy to live. Not all of the food you eat is digested; some is expelled as natural waste. Your body takes out all the good bits it can use first. There are various organs it uses for this, an important one being the liver.

The liver filters out poisons, or toxins (hence "detox"). This does not necessarily mean you are eating poison - sometimes it does though!

But the liver has to do this filtering all the time, and sometimes it has a lot to do. Sometimes it can get overloaded. It does its best, but when it cannot cope it does everything it can to keep working. This can mean relocating some of the toxins and storing them in your body to be expelled when there is less of a demand on the liver. One such method is to store them as adipose tissue - fat!

The liver, and your body, always does the best it can. As well as storing waste it cannot safely eliminate, the body can also send it out in other ways. So if you have ever had spots, bad breath, or a strange rash, it could be this method at work. Sometimes it looks less attractive, but it is always good for you.

So, spots etc. are actually waste being eliminated in a safe way (avoiding liver damage, you see). It is natural, but it is a sign that the liver is overloaded, and that things could be managed more easily if there were less of a load on it.

Do you want to know what is hard for the liver to process, and what is easy or even helpful? OK I will tell you!

CAUSES PROBLEMS:
Drugs (so-called "recreational" drugs)
Drugs (medical drugs - these are intended to help but they are foreign to the body and it will fight to eliminate them if it can)
Tobacco (smoking, oh dear, I hope you don't smoke)
Alcohol (Drink! It is hard to process too. You know that alcoholics can suffer liver failure, don't you)
Tea and Coffee (very common, I know, but you also know they are strong stimulants, don't you! Especially if you drink them...)

OK that's all for "special cases". Now we can talk about food.

MORE DIFFICULT TO PROCESS:
Red Meat (especially big steaks)
Potatoes
Tomatoes
Peppers
Aubergines
Mushrooms
Olives
Processed meats like sausages
Dairy Foods (Dairy fat): milk, cream, cheese, yoghurt etc.
[Apparently a lot of fat is harder to process too.]
Wheat
Food with preservatives, colourings, artificial flavourings
Sugar - buy any soft drink and tell me it does not have sugar in it (sugar, sucrose, dextrose, levulose, fructose, "fruit sugar" - it's all the same!)
Salt
Soya products (legumes such as peanuts, soy beans, and other beans contain a substance which inhibits the enzyme trypsin (from the pancreas) which is needed to digest them - but this is only really a problem in compromised livers, it is not so bad as bad things!)
Smoked foods

EASIER TO PROCESS:
Chicken and other poultry
Eggs
Oats, barley, rye, millet, buckwheat (also in flour and pasta)
Fish (though it is suggested you shouldn't have too much fish because of what we put into the sea...and into the fish)

ACTUALLY GOOD FOR YOUR LIVER:
Vegetables: Alfalfa, artichoke, bean sprouts, beetroot (not pickled!), broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, dandelion, fennel, garlic, leek, onion, parsley, radish, watercress
Fruits: Apple, pear, apricot, avocado, banana, berries, cranberries, grapefruit, grapes, lemon, orange, papaya, pineapple, watermelon.

How many from the last category did you have today? And how many from the first? And how is your health?

Anyway, a healthy digestion can cope with all normal things - but some of us need to get healthy first. Cutting out toxins will also make you feel happier and have more energy.

So now you know that if you feel a bit nauseous or have a headache, it could be because of "difficult" foods and drinks. So you can consider that now you know about it.

And if you ever feel a bit like that, you can have some of the nice foods to start feeling better!

That's what I wanted you to know about.

If you went for a serious "detox" then that would be different. It hurts! I mean, it should not hurt, but there can be some pains as toxins are released. So be careful - don't do it while you are working!

Oh yes, did I forget to mention one thing that's very good for you?

WATER!

Have a lot - but not too much. (Vegetarians will need less)

A good drink to have is water with lemon juice in it.

Also remember that the best foods are organic, fresh, pure. Organic means "growing" - organic food is "food that's grown in a growing way" rather than in a perverted and unusual way - there's nothing special about it, it's just the natural way! It can be more expensive, but it is getting a lot better. If money is a problem, get the best you can afford - this is your health and happiness, and if you are feeling better you will soon be able to earn more money!

The lists of good and bad liver foods I got from Liver Detox Plan by Xandria Williams. Here it is if you want one! -



[Health Note: Remember, health is a serious matter. I am not a qualified health professional. I am just speaking from personal experience. If you are concerned about your health you should speak to a qualified person.]

Reader Response Reply

Andrew writes in a comment to "Teaching and Learning":

This is very wise and true. But if you can't make enough money from doing what you really want to do, what should you do? Can you (ie. Philip) make enough money from doing what you really want to do, and if you can't, what else do you do to earn it?

3:33 PM GMT+01:0

Hi Andrew, thanks for asking! Although your question is rather penetrating as it involves interrogating me about my finances! :)

There is (as usual) more than one way of looking at this.

1) If I can't make money out of my chosen job, is it really useful to people? People pay for useful things...(of course they pay for useless things too!)

2) Creativity and imagination are very important in helping you find a good job. For example, if I say I want to be an acrobat, then that's fine. I could be a) mad or b) a talented acrobat. OK let's say I am a good acrobat. I could stop there and say, oh, but there is no work for acrobats, so I have to do something else. Or somehow my imagination and creativity could help me see a way to make it work.

Saying

you can't make enough money from doing what you really want to do

...means just that so far you haven't made money from it. Or that you have decided it is not possible and stopped trying - perhaps even before you started!

Now, it is also true that some jobs are not very lucrative. Perhaps they are not useful? But if someone has a helpful talent and they have developed it then there must be a place for it in the world. And you know you are doing the right thing when it makes you feel happy.

So, how to get your dream job: dream it, define your goals, train for it, discover who wants you to do it, aim at them, get money. (Very simple, eh?)

3) OR you can say, look, I love doing this thing, so I'm just going to do it, and not try to get any money from it. But you will have to get money from something, and the other thing you do to survive on needs to be something you enjoy as well...so it is a similar situation.

We all had dreams once, but school often teaches us that we are not good enough to do anything, that we have to make the best of what we have, and living in Britain often teaches us that everything is awful and grey and nobody wants you! (AAArggh!)

Not a pretty picture. And if it is not pretty, leave it! Paint your own!

It might be very daunting to imagine leaving your present path to find a more fun one. You have to be brave. But it will be more colourful and lively! I recommend it.

Myself, I know that everyone has talent. I also know that it could turn to genius with enough commitment. Anyway, regardless of that, we're just looking at talent here, skills, aptitudes, abilities. We all have skills - if there were really people without any skills it would be STUPID. I can't believe it's possible. Perhaps that is more a philosophical-type question - here we are just talking about the people reading this now. Hopefully some skills to be had among them...

If something is valuable then it is needed, somewhere. If I thought I had no value then I would admit it and either live in a hole in the ground eating stones or try to get more useful fast.

It is easier, at the time of writing, for me to make money as a pianist than as a composer because people recognise e.g. a Beethoven sonata or a Xenakis piece. They do not know what a piece by me is like (since I generally do not know either!) so it is harder to get them to "buy" it. It takes a bit longer to develop as a composer so I am not expecting to earn millions out of that yet! If I never get money for composing that's OK (actually I already did get a bit) because I will still get paid to use my skills. But I have not finished yet so it is possibly not the end of the story for me as a composer...

I recognise where there is a demand, and that plays some part in the way I direct myself. Somehow I can think of marketing potential yet still stick to my own interests. Odd. Strangely though, anyone can reproduce existing success, but something really distinctive is rather more memorable, and that's what I am going for. It is me, my personality, doing the things I am interested in. Even if I play a piece by Chopin, I know that it is potentially popular (people have done it many times before) but I also know that I am meant to play it (if I decide to) and that my way is different from the other ways. So that's what makes me think there could be some demand.

The other point is about "making enough money". What is enough? Perhaps some lifestyles have very high costs. It could be nicer to sell the 35 sports cars and grow apples instead. If you see what I mean. Doesn't mean you have to set lower standards. But it is worth thinking about.

And if you can't make enough money yet at your chosen thing, it's OK to try other things for now. You need to eat. But, one step at a time, you are learning how to make some money being you. It might not be ultra-profitable, but you will have enough.

Being rich is easy anyway (I'm not telling you how to do it!) although it is not very nice sometimes.

To answer the question, if you can't make enough money from doing what you really want to do, you should

Admit it.
or
Do something else.
or
Try harder.

Even to pick something a bit more common like banker, solicitor, etc., they all require training and so on, so success would not be instant. To get a good job you need to be good though. That's probably the key.

Thanks!