< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 27 OF 27 ·
|Feb-27-13|| ||Shams: <achieve> Machine gun, or frog? :)|
|Feb-28-13|| ||achieve: Whichever does it for ya, <Shams> - I admit to not getting the association, initially, but now I assume it's the "croak", that familiar sound at night during summer, mostly, when they all line up to give a Concert By The Pond.|
There's an Errol Garner reference for you. ;)
|Feb-28-13|| ||Shams: <achieve> Croak is more the name for the sound they make then the actual sound. American frogs go, "rrrrrrr-ibit". Cheers.|
|Feb-28-13|| ||achieve: <Shams> Exactly in that area does my English show lacunae, animal sounds, terms for household appliances, and the list goes on for a fair bit I assume. rrrrribit is quite a nice find though, although frogs here go differently... More like 'krrrrraak' - frogs are called 'kikkers' in dutch. cheers mate.|
|Mar-01-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: <achieve>
You hit the nail on the head as regards playing with others. I had a jam session in college with a violin and a piano and me on clarinet. It was actually a lot of fun, just sitting there throwing down some tunes, with none of us having the least experience playing in a group (without sheet music that is).
I know the cycle (or circle, as I've heard) of fifths and circle of fourths, both huge in jazz, but as for dominant and sub dominant I have a vague sense of something-ness but nothing I could put into words, and Tonica not a clue.
I actually think the piano is the easiest instrument to learn, if you go about it the right way. I'm not sure if I've told this story, so I'll tell it again. In college I knew how to play clarinet, but not piano, and decided to learn. I sat down and said "Okay, how to go about this??" I thought for a minute until I came up with the idea that the black keys are an F# pentatonic scale!!! So for quite awhile I "threw away" all the white keys while I learned how to move my fingers. Then I added them in again, and started to work through keys. I have a good idea of all the major and minor keys (minors are particularly easy for me, as it's simply a matter of correct emphasis to change the "feel" of a scale from major to minor, and once I heard of modes it was fun to experiment with differing modes of the same key, very fun actually).
My current (for 10 years now I guess) idea I'm working through is to almost abandon keys entirely, and play any note that seems to sound good, or even bad depending on what I want to do with the music. Major, minor, discord, resolution, my only thought is to "get somewhere", and the journey is actually more important than the destination, as once you get there you stop playing!!
It's fun when you can keep going somewhere for 20 minutes without ever getting there, especially when you can continually hint at what "there" will be, and finally resolve it, especially if you can do it in an unexpected way and at an unexpected time.
|Mar-04-13|| ||achieve: <Bobwhoosta> You're absolutely right, it's of course the <Circle> of Fifths, my bad; bit of a slip up, will try and up my game...|
Yes, to explain what the Dominant (chord) in music represents, one could say that the Dominant/(Sub-D/Tonic) terminology is used in music to refer to the <Function> of a chord in relation to the Key that is being played in. Eg in the key of F, the chord - Triad - starting with the Fifth note from that diatonic F-scale, is of course the <C>EG chord. Second in importance following of course the 'Tonic', which is the chord, major triad, in <root position>: FAC in the Key of F. The Dominant has a stabilizing function, next to the Tonic, and also usually serves as the springboard to "resolve" to the Tonic, eg at the end of a phrase/conclusion of a verse/chorus. The most commonly heard phrase in all western music, classical, but also in Jazz and Blues, is the 'two-five-one' progression, writen as ii-V-I, because the chord from the second position is in minor. Also called the "turn-around", or cadence.
To enhance the effect usually a 4th note is added, the 7th (so you have a 1-3-5-7 chord), and that one is 'flattened' - in our example in the Key of F the Dominant 7th chord thus becomes CEG<B-flat>, which of course is part of the normal F-major scale, ONE Black key on the piano, the one on the right, of the Black trio.
The ii chord (lower case i's to indicate it is a minor triad) btw is called the supertonic, and the triad from the 4th note of the scale, is called the Subdominant. The Basic Blues chords are in fact I7, IV7, and V7, Roman numerals are used to indicate the position within the scale.
In the Blues these I7 and IV7 chords have two flatted sevenths that are not in the normal scale, and that's where of course the "Bluesy feel" comes from.
This can all be found anywhere on the web, but a basic grasp of these concepts and names and symbols is imo essential in music making, you do need some basic underlying music Theory, basic Harmony, to play Jazz, Classical, or any genre for that matter. Those tools have to be part of your Toolbox/Kit.
Hope you may find it interesting and/or useful in the future.
Your completely free attitude towards playing solo piano is very much attractive - many would envy you if you are able to play that intuitive and "free from any rule or convention" - but certainly when playing in a small or larger group one needs a few conventions to get a decent result. ;)
Question: What notes form the Subdominant Seventh Chord in the Key of F?
IV7 in F is: B-flat - D - F - A<flat>
Commonly written in Jazz as Bb7
Twelve bar Blues in any Key, looks like this:
I7 IV7 I7 I7
IV7 IV7 I7 I7
V7 IV7 I7 V7
... and because of that twelfth bar Dom7 you are compelled to go for another chorus, and another one, and another....
|Mar-05-13|| ||achieve: <Bobwhoosta>: <I have a good idea of all the major and minor keys (minors are particularly easy for me, as it's simply a matter of correct emphasis to change the "feel" of a scale from major to minor, and once I heard of modes it was fun to experiment with differing modes of the same key, very fun actually).> Great to hear! - and very impressive ... I didn't address this part earlier, since I myself have for some reason been hesitant to dive into the world of Modal or Chordal Harmony, in simple words based on the stacking of Fourths, instead of the more traditional stacking of Thirds to create chords. Tertial vs Quartal Harmony, one could say, and it is integral part of theory and practice for the modern Jazz student to know Modal Harmony, as perfected already by John Coltrane back in the fifties & sixties. I just never quite took to the modern schools in Jazz when I was younger and busy with many other things, and Coltrane, Miles Davis and that crowd I felt went in a direction that I did not relate to, I missed the melodic and harmonic clarity, and in essence the sense of beauty, aesthetics... Bill Evans is a prime example of a player and thinker in both Tertial and Quartal Harmony, but I rarely felt the need nor saw the point in going there, when there is so much more left to explore in Tertial Harmony...|
Strange, in retrospect, and musically naive, as well, from my side.
Now that we live in a time that Hal Leonard Publishing Company issues a lots of Transcripts by the old masters from both Schools, a veil of sorts is being lifted, for me, and clearly Oscar Peterson's more complex work where he recorded in the studio 12-16 minute interpretations, also in live recordings, reveals that he masters(-ed) it all, and simply lets his ear pick up some of the stuff his peers from those decades (50s-70s+) produced, and then easily incorporates it into his own playing, but all in all very sparsely I always thought. Being able to now in minute detail analyse the literal transcriptions of his mostly impromptu masterpieces, I realize that the complexity and idiom covers literally ALL genres and Schools. One of the few, like Coltrane, who transcend any label. Sigh - it's more difficult than Solving Chess, just to work out where the heck these harmonies came from, as complex and impossible to do, now, for any pianist alive, at that speed... It's like a painter's brushstrokes with underlying perfection for minutes on end at dazzling speed... or by a Saxophone player in Coltrane's case... Heaven opened her floodgates and certain insanely talented brains were able to download and decode it; there is no better explanation imo. I know of stories where people like George Shearing, himself a prodigious <blind> pianist, walked out of a Peterson Trio live set, shaking his head in disbelief, cited as saying that Oscar must have been possessed, because it was basically humanly impossible. Oscar's 1950s sideman guitarist Herb Ellis confirmed this also, later, on many occasions.
And in those days they did not have the time to theorize about it, they needed to play to pay the bills, 200 concerts a year for Oscar, only occasionally home for Christmas, so it was mainly the music critics and the Miles Davis crowd that started to intellectualize the 'Modern Schools' and diss the Óld' one - taking shots at Peterson and his ilk, well below the belt, as if he had not grown or evolved in any way, and played like a programmed computer. A few knew better though, and purely because of his utter craftsmanship and dedication and support from a part of the older generation's admiration did he manage to overcome the negative press. He literally ran all over them and annihilated the lot, and regained the Maharadja Of The Keyboard recognition Ellington bestowed on him in the few years before the Duke's untimely death in 1974. Those early 70s was when Oscar developed a style of Solo Piano that left all others, as well as those before him, in a trail of dust, except Tatum and Nat King Cole, his own idols from his youth.
part 2/2 follows
|Mar-05-13|| ||achieve: What a story, eh? At the time the Rock'n Roll had started to take over Pop music culture, and in a hurry, completely dominating the airwaves and record sales, and if you wanted to make it in Jazz in the late fifties and sixties you <had> to come up with innovative styles and experimental Jazz, that could be talked about at a higher intellectual level... and that became the New World Jazz Order for a while, but growing up musically (record listener!, singing) in the late 70s/80s I never let down on Cole, Ellington, Basie, Miss Ella F. ... the Swing Era, it's sometimes simplistically called. But essentially the term is quite correct, and most know what is meant if they have some understanding of Music History. Rounding off one could conclude that these schools and movements served a greater purpose, in that it offers the paying public a chance to pay for and buy what <they> like to listen to, and what to copy or teach their children. And you lucky americans thank god kept those tertial Harmony and practice traditions for a large part alive in the Country & Western musical culture, Bluegrass, and so on, and even today, just look at Norah Jones, when she plays Live, you feel sometimes that you are transported back to the Fifties, small Jazzclub in New Orleans, or Chicago...|
And not just in the US -- Amsterdam, Holland, and also big cities in France, some in Scandinavia, the old Jazz traditions are literally kept alive in local clubs, Russia is a major revival ground, and in Amsterdam I can confirm from own experience that though little, if any, money was made, local clubs do have Jazz nights, and people play for fun, for the love of playing with oneanother, regardless of the complete lack of a chance of a good record deal. Exceptions: Jamie Cullum, Michael Bublé, and a few others, very few... You can literally feel the joy and longing from the younger generation from youtube travels to the giants of yesteryear, not forgotten, alive and well it seems, but little mainstream attention, but it is there. And it's clear now that it is there to stay.
That was two plus hours typing behind the keyboard, I'm spent...
|Mar-05-13|| ||achieve: <Bobwhoosta> Not sure to what extent the preceding - or the following - has your interest, but as I have fun researching music history I am just posting away. ;) To be more precise I want to amend my previous off the cuff remark about top record sales -- Rock 'n Roll taking over from the star Jazz singers and bands of the 40s -- I did a bit of research into the US charts of the 40s and 50s, and it seems that the No. 1 hits by Frankie Laine, in 1949, sort of signalled the shift to, and take-over by-, the new style of music referred to as Rock 'n' Roll. Looking further into the top Albums of those years, into the 50s and 60s even, did show the tremendous longevity of Giants like Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald's epic Great American Songbook recordings that came out in 1956... But already Jazz had taken a different position, then, mostly earning recognition and record sales <alongside> the new styles that started to dominate the charts -- of a decent quality as well as quantity -- but only occasionally able to keep up with the new wave of Popular music that had become a mix of Blues, Folk, Country, and Jazz...evolving towards the pure Rock 'n' Roll dominating the charts a few years prior to Elvis Presley rising to prominence. Then quickly the Beatles emerged, landing us in the ROCK Music Era in 1960.|
|Mar-07-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: That was some pretty in depth music history. I must admit that the names and dates mean a little to me, but it's much more interesting to see how the blend of styles influenced each other to become something new (rock and roll). The people and bands are good to know in that I can hear their music in my head, and agree with their representation as the ushering in of a slightly more this or that style. It's amazing to me how jazz is so prevalent in influence without being as popular as it could be, and I often think it's exactly that ultra modern style that has on the one hand shaded jazz in a shroud of mystery, and yet on the two other hands separated it from the enjoyment of those who don't wish to become students or connoisseurs and also became the excuse for some imo really poor music for the sake of "exploration" or what not. Coltrane could vomit good jazz. Most people cannot, and yet they do, and those who listen- in the attempt to not lose their title as "connoisseur"- must blatantly accept all kinds of crap in order to appear sufficiently modern. Anyway, that is my opinion on both modern music and modern art. There are still some great musicians out there making great music, and some of them are modern, but I think the difference between modern music and the previous generations is you have to be an absolute genius to make palatable modern art or music, whereas you only needed follow the geniuses of the past in order to do the same.|
|Mar-08-13|| ||achieve: <I often think it's exactly that ultra modern style that has on the one hand shaded jazz in a shroud of mystery, and yet on the two other hands separated it from the enjoyment of those who don't wish to become students or connoisseurs and also became the excuse for some imo really poor music for the sake of "exploration" or what not.> Well said, and as expected I FULLY agree. There arose a disconnect of some sorts, the experimental Jazz movement just took a complete left turn and all that was worked towards regarding taste, style, expression, harmonies that were both refined and newish, but still firmly rooted in those that laid the foundations, seemed to be totally abandoned. And indeed some very poor music as a result. |
Not many names may ring a bell, but Elvis Presley no doubt did, and at the age of 2-3 already, he was fascinated by the Gospel singing that he listened to while in Church, where he would sit on his moms lap, and when the choir started, he'd slide down and try and get closer to them, to try and sing along! Presley as I read was a walking Blues Encyclopedia, when he was 18-19, without having had formal musical schooling; all self-taught... Bernstein called Elvis the Biggest Influence in Music of the 20th Century.
But to get back to his Gospel, earliest, roots... I have a concert on DVD here, Elvis in the autumn of his career, when he was driving to a gig with his musicians, how incredibly deeply emotional he got when they would start a hymn, a capella in the car or at a soundcheck, and those were literally such a joyous and profound experience for Presley, that he had tears down his cheeks, and he gave unequaled vocal renderings in those moments, supposedly private moments, and clearly you could see where his musicality and love came from.
When I put that on I get goosebumps... Even now while writing this I get the goosebumps. Don't think that aside from my dearest Oscar, I have ever felt such profoundness and emotional pull by any musical artist, than that footage I just now described. That transcended music.
|Mar-22-13|| ||achieve: <Bobwhoosta> Hi - the post below speaks for itself, I reckon, so I copied and pasted it below - with the added note that since you and Daisuki seem to have good communication between you, I hoped that some clarity, not hostility or unwanted negativity, can come from a proper discussion, and I chose your forum, of course if you are OK with it.|
- - - -
Honouring one request to cease posting on this subject at the candidates page, I have placed this post also in <Bobwhoosta>'s forum, who posted yesterday on the subject, and no doubt a fruitful discussion, if one wishes, can be conducted there. I will not be participating, but will only post a few links to some of the many articles and google hits that will appear if you put "is chess a wargame?" or similar in the searchbox. I haven't asked his permission yet, but I think we'll know soon enough.
Let the evidence, other peoples opinions, studies, and historical fact speak, is my suggestion to those that have issue with the assertion that chess is a boardgame simulation of (pre-gunpowder) warfare between two armies. And then we of course can always agree to disagree.
<I have been noticing a disturbing trend amongst wargamers. Many of my brethren warriors seem to have completely forgotten their wargaming roots! How can one call himself a wargamer, a master of kriegsspiel, when you do not play the oldest of all wargames? A game of war that is as sublime as it is economical?
Of course I am referring to the royal game of chess.>
<[...] But that hasn't stopped the close relationship between chess and the military. In 2004, Swedish and Australian teams studied the game anew for any lessons it may be able to impart to our current understanding of warfare. While both research efforts differed in their approach, both found that chess offers a unique insight into warfare. Jan Kuylenstierna, one of the Swedish researchers, remarked that Chess "resembles real war in many respects. Chess involves a struggle of will, and it contains what has been termed the essentials of fighting---to strike, to move and to protect." Indeed, Jason Scholz of the Australian group even found the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom to confirm the results they were receiving from their chess wargaming: [...]>
Two excerpts from a well-documented article, which can be found in its entirety here:
Some other links:
- - - -
|Mar-22-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: Ya'll are welcome here. I for one think it's simply a matter of semantics at this point, as how you choose to define your terms will determine your arguments in the debate. <Daisuki> prefers "war game" to refer to a number of games that have the specific characteristics of trying to simulate war in the most precise way possible, and while in the vernacular of the chess world chess is definitely considered a "war game", I would think that the technical definition doesn't apply.|
I do think that in an abstract way chess is and has always been attempting to replicate the symbolic nature of war, struggle, objectives, and the like.
|Mar-23-13|| ||achieve: <Bobwhoosta> Thanks. - allow me to paste the following three excerpts from the same article as above, and then let me ask you why the argument for a Semantics or "how you choose to define your terms" position is possibly untenable. It's a rather important point, and it touches on Philosophy of Language, Philology, and several other fields of thought that I will summarize under the umbrella Critical Thinking. It wasn't my intention to participate in a renewed discussion, and I do not expect any responses, but I found that the subject intrigues me, and as you can read from that article (there are many more), I'm not the only one intrigued, and there is an enormous amount under the surface, buried over the centuries, that is quite fascinating and revealing. Okay, my final two cents for now, researching this costs a lot of time, and best wishes for the weekend. Sunday is "D-day"? ;) |
1. <The name 'chess' is derived from the Sanskrit Chaturanga which can be translated as 'Four Arms' referring to the four arms (or divisions, if you prefer) of the Indian army--- elephants, cavalry, chariots, and infantry. In this regard, Chess is very much a wargame that simulates what we would now call the combined arms operations of the ancient world. It is because of this combined arms approach that both strategy and tactics can be taught by the game (unlike Checkers, which is entirely tactics, or Go, which is entirely strategy). In this regard, Chess is unique. As a result, it is a most remarkably balanced wargame.>
2. <So, you see, the pieces of chess all are derived and based upon actual military units. Even when chess was changed by the cultural conditions of medieval Europe, the alterations involved little more than a cosmetic change in focus---a shift from the tactical to the strategic elements of battle. James Dunnigan, noted military historian and wargame designer, has done the best job of summing-up the wargaming roots of chess:
"Chess is one of the oldest surviving ancient wargames. Games similar to chess go back thousands of years. Chess is also one of the more accurate wargames for the period it covers (the pre-gunpowder period). Chess is a highly stylized game. It is always set up the same way, the playing pieces and the playing board are always the same. The board is quite simple. Each of the pieces has clearly defined capabilities and starting positions, much like soldiers in ancient warfare. Given that ancient armies were so unwieldy and communication so poor, it is easy to see why each player in chess is allowed to move only one piece per turn. Because the armies were so hard to control, the battles were generally fought on relatively flat, featureless ground. Then, as now, the organization of the army represented the contemporary social classes. Thus the similarity between chess pieces and the composition of ancient armies.">
3. <Why else should wargamers be enthralled with this game of kings and queens? The mere fact that chess allows the players to plan and execute just about every classic military operation should be reason enough! Feints, flank attacks, frontal assaults, deep penetration raids, sieges, pincer attacks, blockades, and fighting withdrawals just to name a few! Talk about your options! It's all here! In fact, there are so many possible plans of offense and defense, that chess players have organized them in a large number of openings. Openings are best thought of as pre-made and carefully evaluated battle plans that a chess player can commit to memory so as to be prepared for any eventuality.>
|Mar-23-13|| ||achieve: This is a clip of Oscar as a guest with the Dick Cavett Show, very nice conversation, and Peterson explaining and showing several styles/players. For a while I've been meaning to share this, so here goes:|
Cavett acts so "cooool"
|Mar-23-13|| ||Thorski: <achieve> Great clip! Such scintillating ease. Thanks for posting it.|
Hey, you should reopen your forum.
|Mar-24-13|| ||achieve: <Thorski: <achieve> Great clip! Such scintillating ease. Thanks for posting it.> My pleasure - scintillating ease indeed; but developed with a work ethic close to what is humanly possible, after his father, Daniel Peterson, told him at age 16 that he wouldn't allow Oscar to leave school and play and practice full-time to "become just another jazz piano player" - but insisted that "if you want me to let you go, you have to become <the best>"... This rather unhealthy high demand in fact had Oscar study harder than before, and within 5 years of well planned study and performances in Canada, locally, he suddenly became the finished article, technically and harmonically, so that he could basically "say whatever he wanted to say, emotionally, musically, that he wanted", to use his own words. And literally at the snap of a finger; fluent in all keys and all styles, in the process of developing and delivering the famous "Peterson brand" - his debut in the US in 1949 in Carnegie Hall was insisted upon by Norman Granz himself, <the> Jazz Impressario for decades, and Oscar blew off the roof during that performance. Oscar was 24 at the time, so imagining what heights he would reach later is downright scary... Erm, yes - he is my idol, as you can probably tell by now. ;) When he died in 2007, I felt like a dearly loved granddad had passed.|
|Mar-24-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: <achieve>
My reference to semantics was based on <Daisuki>'s reference to an article defining "war games" in a more modern form than has been used historically. In fact this newer branch of games tries to replicate war to a higher level and degree than an abstract game like chess ever could. And yes, if you choose to define your terms to say that a "war game" MUST replicate war directly and not symbolically, then chess is indeed a very poor war game. But it then becomes a question of how you are using the language and defining your terms. And I think that <Daisuki> is using a very strict and restrictive definition of terms in choosing to define chess as a very un-warlike game. If you accept her definitions, the conclusion follows that chess is not a warlike game. However, I disagree on the definitions, and therefore must disagree on the conclusion.
Chess was built on war, to symbolize war, and contains elements of war. All are abstract and symbolic, and therefore cannot be likened to war beyond analogy, but once you enter the realm of analogy and symbolism chess indeed becomes a VERY warlike game, in fact the most warlike abstract strategy game that exists imo.
So if you want to say that an abstract strategy game cannot be warlike, that is up to you, and within that definition chess is trivially unwarlike, but otherwise once you get past that definition and allow for a little leeway you can easily see that it is very warlike indeed.
|Mar-24-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: I don't know where I saw that Oscar Peterson clip, but I think you either showed it to me before, or I ran a trek through youtube Peterson after viewing another clip you shared. Either way it was a pleasure to watch again, and will be when I see it again sometime in the future.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||Gypsy: <Bobwhoosta> Some time ago, I promised I would return here with some "Outliers" type of insight regarding development of young talent; and regarding the potential damage superficially imposed teaching/competition structures can make.|
I apologize that this again will be only a fly-by; I just do not yet have free cycles for more. Still I hope you will find this info interesting:
We all know that physical skills of youth rises partly from training, but partly simply from growing and maturing. An important technical question is: How steep is the age-dependent component of performance?
We have now quantified this age-dependency part of performance for youth soccer, boys between ages 11 and 18 years.
('We' being my significant other -- she does the lion's share of the work -- me, and a couple of most helpful volunteers that scraped the results of tens of thousands games by a couple thousand youth teams.)
Here is the for me most intuitive way to think quantitatively about our result:
Take any team of young players and produce two copies. Keep one frozen in time and instantly age the other by 8 months. (Assuming that we can do tricks like that.) The older team will be stronger, of course, but by how much?
Well, if in the original setting the two teams produced on average game results 2:2 per game, then the 8-month older team would on average clobber the younger copy of itself by the score of 4:1.
(That is a difference of a whole class. After the mere 8 months, games would not be competitive at all.)
|Mar-28-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Gypsy>
You refer to the book "Outliers"? I totally agree with that assessment, and it's sad that there have to be practical limitations for setting league age limits. The player who is 8 months older because of some predetermined age of entry will be a class better during all of the formative years, and this will by the nature of a "Well we've got a gem here" approach attract his coaches to give him more encouragement, training, and one-on-one attention. His parents will make sure he practices more, and that will make him better. The snowball effect is exponetial in that regard, as seen in the first case study done in Outliers (the book). Fantastic literature.
But I thought we were talking about whether greater population size of necessity produced more talent?? I wanted to do an "all other things being equal" thing, but as you mentioned within that paradigm there is no "all other things equal" as the entirety of society and socialogical interactions shift and jump based on population size and dynamics. In fact there was an interesting TED talk about that very thing wherein one of the presenters said you could determine a number of very important societal factors (such as crime, GDP and the like) simply as a function of population. He said( and I'm not sure if I agree with him, although he has the data and I do not) that the data suggest that in essence these things are ONLY a function of population, and that as the size of a city increases you see increases in things like crime as a percentage of the population and the like.
Anyway, when you return with drops of Jupiter in your hair perhaps you'd like to view it? I think they have it on netflix, and I'd be willing to try and track it down for you if you'd like.
|Mar-29-13|| ||rebjorn: How much per ticket?|
|Mar-29-13|| ||Bobwhoosta: <rebjorn>
|Feb-03-14|| ||Tiggler: Hello, Bobwoosta, how are the mattress sales, lately?|
I'm sure you are not lying down on the job. (Betcha never heard that one before).
Thanks for your message to my forum.
|Feb-04-14|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Tiggler>
Doing well my friend!!! Last month was a bit slow, but my main problem is I'm competing against myself as I've been in this store for two years and they base budget on previous store performance. After busting out 120%+ to budget for long enough, I am now competing just to make my numbers.
I DO lie down on the job, quite often actually. This is an important part of a sleep consultant's job, as you must know EVERYTHING about your mattresses if you expect to be able to explain them to someone who knows as close to nothing as makes no difference.
Mattress sales are interesting and unique in that they are extremely important products, selecting the right one is so important, and yet your client usually wants to be in the store for as little time as possible. Sometimes they take 8 minutes to make an 8 year decision!!
Thanks for checking up on me.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 27 OF 27 ·
Advertise on Chessgames.com