Art is something which confounds our senses. Science appeals to our propensity towards the measurable. Hence, art occurs when so many simultaneous variables work together to present a package that stimulates our senses in a way that just makes us say, “Holy Shit that was amazing!”

The key lies both in the inspiration and the execution.

Inspiration

It’s one of my pet peeves nowadays, that schools only ever teach students how to solve problems, they never teach how to find out what problems to solve. I feel this is because the educators have no knowledge, or at least no recognition for the process of inspiration to pursuit an endeavour.

And I admit, it isn’t entirely their fault. In fact, I’d say that the fact that inspiration comes so fleetingly and at so hopelessly inappropriate times makes the concept of teaching it extremely hard to grasp by the reigns.

Though sudden inspiration comes to us no matter what field we are in, I think the artist is plagued moreso by this inconsistency. Science usually follows upon various logical thought processes. Then suddenly everything converges, the ideas fit together. Eureka!

I may be wrong, but my own creative process in composing music, as well as that of others is hardly like that. It’s like a tune suddenly comes into our heads and if we don’t record it somehow, it’s gone forever, or at least much harder to retrieve. This is less a problem for the scientist, who usually can fall back upon empirical concepts for inspiration.

This is much harder in art, because though we can define such concepts (eg: music theory), it doesn’t lend itself to a definitive answer.

Science is basically an act of convergence, an attempt for hard to vary explanations. Art, one of divergence, of trying to make the familiar things seem new in various different aspects. No wonder artists over the years have made a name for themselves as being manic, bipolar alcoholics. Their job is so much harder!

Jackson Pollock's Art. Image Credit: abstract-art.com

I think the distinction is best seen with professional Chess players. A computer can calculate every single possible move and outcome from a single point in the game. If we could do that, we’d all be chess masters.

But the real masters can’t do that either, at least not consciously. What they have in fact is the experience of many thousands of games such that they can see the moves which will most likely provide them with a favourable outcome. This is something the layperson cannot do.

It is this condensing of experience, science and judgment of the odds that we cumulatively call intuition that defines an art.

I think that eventually we will be able to dissect art down to its fundamental elements. We can explain why Pollock’s art is so amazing, its the math; its the fractals hidden in the seemingly random spatters. We may very likely employ algorithms to duplicate his artwork at will.

But the art will remain, because there would be only the distinct few who can manage to produce the final result. It baffles the logical mind, as it should; the human mind is a wonderful thing.

No related posts.

Now, I hate over-analysing the costs that I would spend on my guitar hobby. But jumping into the pursuit without some ballpark idea of how much you should be spending is an equally tragic mistake.

In this post, I attempt to dissect the potential cost of playing the guitar. This is important for anybody who does not possess an unlimited budget, since any pursuit can become a potential money sink.

If anything, this post will give some potential areas in which you could possibly be spending money, an important thing for beginners to know.

Do note however, that these prices seem reflect the prices within the scope of my residence (Melbourne, Australia), and may be cheaper or more expensive elsewhere in the world. However, I can say that prices generally do not vary too much; you can easily get a price range that is in the ballpark.

There are three broad categories of costs to consider when buying a guitar. The baseline cost of purchase, the cost of maintenance, and the cost of potential enhancement.

The cost of purchase

This is straightforward. If you’re buying an acoustic guitar, then this refers to the cost of the guitar. If you’re buying an electric guitar, then the cost is that of the guitar and amplifier.

Of course, this is subject to price ranges. In general, a cheap plywood acoustic guitar can be as cheap as $50 brand new [1]. A solid wood acoustic will probably cost a minimum of $150. This price range can then extend all the way up to a couple of thousand dollars. As an anecdotal note, I could not tell the difference between an off-the-rack $900 acoustic and my friend’s $3000 acoustic (of which the wood had been treated and aged). But then again, I’m a hopeless acoustic player, and the difference was certainly too marginal for myself to detect.

With electric guitars, the price ranges will vary more. A starter kit with guitar and amp can go as low as $150-200. An entry-level branded guitar could cost a minimum of $400. Make that above $1000 for one tier up, to $2000 for the mid-tier, and in excess of $4000 for limited editions and signature models.

As with amplifiers, $100 will probably get you a cheap 10W amp (enough to disturb the neighbours, mind you) that has only a volume, tone and distortion knob. As you increase the price, you get more power, and more functionality. Increase it to $2000, and you could probably get a 60W Marshall with multiple inputs, volume and tone controls, overdrive and clean settings, amidst other things.

The cost of maintenance

Maintenance is probably an inaccurate word, but it conveys the meaning well enough: the ongoing costs of your guitar playing.

The basics could include the cost of your string replacement, guitar cases and cleaning materials. If you want to be pedantic, electric guitar players can even consider the cost of electricity (not much).

This cost can vary of course, depending on your string type and replacement frequency [2]. Of course, it also varies according to how beat up your equipment gets (generally more so for careless people or people who play live).

Assuming that you are a beginner, your case likely came free or at a low cost, the cost of electric (if applicable) is miniscule, strings that need to be changed pretty infrequently (I used to play until my strings broke), and some basic cleaning and polishing of your guitar, then we are probably looking at a cost of $50 a year. This, of course, depends. Either way, it should not be too significant.

The cost of potential enhancement

This the cost of making your equipment better.

Needless to say, the potential cost of this varies a lot.

You could get the best amplifiers available, get the best guitar, the best set of pickups, [3] the best recording microphone, the best set of effects hardware, the best editing software, and the best , not to mention the best strap and picks, foot a bill of $20,000 and then realise that you now want to make your own studio. Then you realise that 1 guitar isn’t enough, and you need a custom-made flying-V with an EDGE-pro tremolo.

Any hobby will be subject to the amorphous yet strongly addictive power of consumerism. I’ve got no other recommendations there. One could easily spend $100,000 on this ‘hobby’. For beginners there can be easy recommendations, come to the advanced stage, when your equipment begins to matter, the only thing you can do, is to use your own sensible discretion.

—
Notes:
[1] I had a friend who got his guitar in China for 20RMB. It was lousy, the fretboard was slightly uneven, and the tone quality was bad. But hey, it’s a guitar.

[2] In a tropical and more humid climate, your strings tend to wear down faster. Having lived in Singapore, I can vouch for the fact that after 1 month of daily playing, my strings were basically starting to rust and lose tone. Here in Melbourne, if I’m not doing a performance, then string quality doesn’t seem to deteriorate even after 2 months. Hence I changed strings once a month in Singapore, and about once every 2-3 months in Melbourne. Given that each set of strings costs $6-10, that represents at least a $50 difference.

[3] I’m going all out to say that I’m biased in my preference for certain brands. Namely, Ibanez guitars, DiMarzio Pickups, Marshall Amps, and Korg Effects. With regards to software though, I’ll pick anything that’s good.

Related posts:

1. Does the Quality of Your Equipment Matter?

This is just a little post, but I thought I’d make the point.

Playing Live is not the same as playing at home. In fact, playing for any sort of audience is not the same as your regular practice, even if it in front of video camera.

The reason this is the case is because of the numerous different factors that have to be taken into account to give a performance that would mirror that which you can pull off in practice. I would like to run through some of these which I have noticed over my very short and haphazard time of playing for live audiences.

Essentially, I think there are only two things that you need to take note of.

First: What Type of Musician are You?

If you are an acoustic guitar player or a solo singer-songwriter, you basically have two factors to consider, the clarity of your amplification equipment (mic and amplifier) and the right balance between the two. This being only two instruments, is pretty easy to do by yourself.

If you have a 4 piece band, this instantly compounds the problem, since you have to make sure that 4 different instruments work together in harmony to sound like you sound in the studio. Not to mention the mic volume, the extra reverb of the venue, the drum dampening, the effect of temperature on the tuning of your instruments, the fact that you need to ensure that every one in the room regardless of where they are needs to hear the same thing, and a multitude of other factors. Oh, and I must mention that if the venue has lousy monitors, then the way you hear yourself will be completely different from what the audience hears.

We know that we need the audience to hear what we want them to hear, but you also need to hear yourself to be able to execute the more complex sections of your music. It’s really a pain to play deaf in front of a large audience.

There were three things I learned:

1. Always do a thorough sound check prior to the event
2. There are professional sound engineers for a reason, use them if you can, and if you don’t have the luxury, don’t do anything ambitious
3. Nothing ever turns out as planned

This is the reason why professional musicians spend years getting their live performances right should tell you something about the complexity of the task and the amount of manpower that goes into a performance. If you’re the type of instrumentalist like myself, look at a performance by Steve Vai (Where the Wild Things Are Video) and be absolutely amazed not just by the musical flair, but also the probably one hundred sound engineers, mixers, costume designers and other people behind the performance.

It’s no wonder why most musicians look like amatuers, simply because of the many other factors that go into a great performance.

It is indeed a humbling thought.

Next: What Does the Audience Think?

Frankly, nobody cares about what kind of work you’ve put into a performance.

As with anything else, be it business, your investments, or your exams, people want to see results. We don’t care what sort of code goes behind Facebook, but the founders and programmers have to know in order to give us the features that we want.

As a musician, this is even harder, since you are being judged on a subjective and more importantly, real-time, stage. Unlike a Facebook which is judged by the User interface and the speed in which new features are pumped out is measured in days, the musician has the task of delivering exactly as promised second for second.

Also don’t forget the horrors of dealing with the critics, especially if your music is not mainstream (whatever that may mean).

In essence, I think what I’ve learned is that I can never be quite good enough, and that gives me motivation to keep on getting better. I also think that you have to be quite shameless, and keep on trying new things, many of which will only be met with the harsh feedback of your audience.

Still, I trust that after another 30 years of musical endeavour, the patterns should start to evolve nicely for me to be able to put together a feast for the senses on stage.

No related posts.

When i was young, i was the atypical shy kid. Throughout my childhood i would not spontaneously partake in activities. I resented group work in class, often having to be coaxed by my teachers.

That was the past. Now i’m a drug dealer who’s addicted to my own drug. The drug – is Self Confidence.

Strange in nature and bold in expression, self confidence is akin to testosterone. It increases your energy and drive. It speeds up the rate of growth. It makes one aggressively pursue progress in every field. It seems to occur in naturally fixed amounts, the amount in each person governed by some pre-determined genetic process.

Yet, just like any other drug, anyone can take a dose of self confidence. Unlike other drugs, there are no negative side effects, and it usually remains in the system for a very long time.

It seems that those who abuse this drug have it much easier in life. The real question is: Why do some people have naturally high level of self confidence? And if that is not the case, why is it that some people never develop it?

What it is and why we need it

Firstly, it will do good to examine what is self confidence.

It can be defined as a certain sureness in oneself. A certainty that one’s actions will lead to a desired outcome. It is not to be confused with arrogance or smugness. For one, arrogance is usually uninformed. Self confidence however, is an assessment of the situation in its most optimistic terms.

An example of arrogance would probably be when one faces an upcoming piano competition and says, “The competitors stand no chance in the face of my talent!” The self confident guy would probably say, “If I practice and assess my weakness in this piece of music conscientiously, I will be able to win over the competition.”

Either way, the outcome may be the same, that you end up winning the competition. Yet the arrogant person may have overlooked certain areas or wildcards that may serve to be his downfall. The self confident person does not.

Now what about the opposite. If one lacks self confidence, then obviously the attitude would be different. The person may instead say, “I know some of the competitors are better than me. I guess I will just do my best.”

Many people fall into this category, especially thinking that their best is essentially the best they can do. These people often fail to see that their present best is not their future best, be it even 5 seconds into the future. The self confident person however, recognises that improvement is a natural part of life, and always strives towards this.

The result, is that their actions differ. Self confidence will likely cause one to take the right actions to ensure success.

In the example, the self confident person may practice for 3 hours a day, each time assessing his/her faults and improving the playing bit by bit. Then he/she may listen to other musicians’ interpretation of the work and think about how it could be adapted or improved upon.

The arrogant person may have practiced once per day and just told oneself that he/she would win.

The unsure person may practice 3 hours a day and thought it sufficient.

Clearly, the first person would achieve his/her peak condition on the day of the competition, however good that may be.

Now we need to know how to obtain this drug.

Confidence as a function of Environment

Some people would argue that humans are born with a particular character. Some people just seem to be confident, outgoing and spontaneous in the face of challenge. It stems from motivation (which is a whole different topic), a sort of satisfaction to be gained in behaving a certain way. Perhaps such people find it great to be up centre stage, showcasing their talents to the world.

To such people, self confidence is a given. It doesn’t matter how well they perform, rather, the belief that such a performance is one that is worthy of self satisfaction. Hence there is nothing to fear and the outlook is positive, regardless of the environment.

However, for the many, the environment plays a critical role in the level of self confidence.

Imagine arm-wrestling a huge guy with bulging forearms and biceps. You look at your puny biceps and shudder at the outcome. Or maybe you see that beautiful girl across the street and think of the awkwardness of your smile and posture, rejecting the opportunity to make contact.

It is obvious the the perceived magnitude of the upcoming challenge may be a large factor in determining your outlook of the challenge.

Why then are there those are can’t seem to back away from a challenge? Are they just stupid? Or bold? Or fearless?

I think anyone who acts like this would tell you that there are times when they definitely feel scared, nervous, anxious, overly excited, etc. But there is always something bigger fueling their actions. These are what i think are the two main reasons:

1. Social pressure

Suppose your friends have dared you to go and speak to that girl. Some people would have backed down completely. While some others would have quickly mustered the courage to act, not wanting to look stupid in front of one’s peers.

Suppose during the aforementioned piano competition, your parents are watching. Either you break down from nervousness or decide that you are going to show them how great you are.

It would have become a default either/or response to the situation which is largely unconscious.

2. Previous experience

Very often, we predict the future based on what has happened in the past. Physical patterns like the time of rain can be inferred from the way the clouds seem to appear. This also holds true for the state of self confidence.

Very likely, someone who has scored a A+ in a maths exam would think the next math exam is going to be manageable. Even when the paper comes and they see questions they do not know, the likely response is to try to figure the question out instead of panic.

In the case of the piano competition, one who has the experience of facing a tough opponent will naturally not be fazed by the opponent’s performing. Thus they would proceed to perform as they would have without this negative emotional baggage.

The difference is in conditioning.

What to do

It seems obvious then, that self confidence is entirely determined by mindset. The one thing which most people fail to realise is that mindset and attitudes can change, but they tend not to change quickly. There may be certain times when one will experience an epiphany and change their mindset immediately, but the years of experiential conditioning will make such occurrences less common.

Still, the humble aphorism ‘practice makes perfect’ could not hold more true. Realise that all the responses to the situations mentioned above are largely subconscious. Thus just like the biological fight or flight response wired into our brains, our response to such situations always revert back to our most basic of principles.

Hence, to improve the level of self confidence one has, it is vital to work on changing these basic principles. This takes time and practice.

My experience, especially with public speaking and doing live music performances, was that I hated making mistakes or looking stupid in front of people. But then every time I had to make a class presentation, I would prepare my fullest and remind myself that if I said what I prepared, I couldn’t go wrong. Over time, that mindset slowly changed. I saw myself make progress in speaking. I basically knew what to expect in various situations, what to say when someone raised a question, and how the audience would react to certain things I said. Eventually, i got hooked onto speaking. My past experiences now resonated with a positive outcome, and the social response of the audience now pleased me. How could i not feel confident!

Confidence and Competence

Note that while I always felt confident, it was initially because I would prepare very well for the speech. Even now I will prepare well before I say anything. Of course there are times when people raise questions which I do not expect, even some which i cannot answer. But I now know how to pre-empt and deflect such questions. Again it was a matter of conditioning.

So in a sense, it was my confidence in speaking that gave rise to my competence in speaking. As for my studies, my competence gave rise to my confidence. Realising that this worked both ways gave a tremendous boost in the attitude towards achievement. Hence i now strive for both in any undertaking.
So what are you waiting for, start practicing such a skill now if you haven’t been. Try to be more confident with every challenge, and you will soon find yourself seeking challenges. Remember, “The strongest of warriors are Time and Patience,” – Leo Tolstoy

No related posts.