Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
4 Fingers Or 3?
Someone at rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz brought up switching to a 3 fingered left hand approach from a 4 fingered approach. Below are my thoughts:
I've spent most of my guitar playing time using the four finger approach but when I developed an interest in Django and then Wes I wanted to investigate the differences.
I've also used the Garrison Fewell books and agree with others in that I believe they are superb. They have helped me a great deal.
In studying the Django approach, I've also used books from Mike Horowitz (djangobooks.com) and his cohorts. They are the most helpful in understanding that style than others' books I've studied.
Some conclusions I've come to:
The 4 finger CAGED and Leavitt approach is a more mastering music on your instrument sort of approach. More of an approach where that is more open to possibilities musically. It's not so much about jazz as it is about having a good way to master playing the guitar in a variety of styles.
The 3 finger approach is something I think more of as a guitar styles approach as opposed to the "all music" approach. I don't think it's based as much as playing scales in positions. Trying to adapt in that direction from the 4 finger approach is almost fruitless. The 3 finger approach is typically more about phrases and arpeggios than scales - which may be one reason why people might consider it to be more musical.
On reflection - I did a lot of scale learning starting from the lowest note in a position, playing to the top of that position and then descending again. This is pretty contrary to what most of us would call good music. When I experimented with keeping my soloing to the top 4 strings I felt things came into focus a little better. Especially in respect to what some of the great guitar stylists do. (I still have a strong tendency to "over scale" in my improvising when I don't really have a good musical thought - i.e. most of the time).
Another big part is how you hold the instrument (or posture). There are several variables in this, but take note of how Django and Wes held their guitars - pretty much with the neck almost parallel to the floor. It's nearly impossible (if not impractical) to work through the Leavitt system like this. Of course there are exceptions (Tal Farlow comes to mind - I understand he had really big hands). The neck down approach is naturally more limiting and hence could lead to more of a guitar style. It also involves having to use a tilted left (fingering) hand technique. The neck up postion - more like a classical posture - is more suited to a variety of fingerings all over the neck. Also the left hand can use more of a perpendicular or right angle approach, as well as a tilted left hand if so desired.
The lowered neck approach has a similar affect has tilting the neck up but holding the body of the instrument lower instead of up closer to the chest.
In summary:
3 finger approach and posture - stylistically limiting but perhaps more musically compelling.
4 finger approach and posture - probably more adaptable to more music.
One more thing in closing - It's pretty difficult if not impossible to get far with a new approach, technique, style, whatever, without giving yourself over to it totally, as in leaving the old approach behind. The times I've had some success in learning a new style, I've done it by restricting myself to only that. If you're currently working steadily then trying to add a playing style that requires different techniques and fingerings, will likely be pretty frustrating.
I've spent most of my guitar playing time using the four finger approach but when I developed an interest in Django and then Wes I wanted to investigate the differences.
I've also used the Garrison Fewell books and agree with others in that I believe they are superb. They have helped me a great deal.
In studying the Django approach, I've also used books from Mike Horowitz (djangobooks.com) and his cohorts. They are the most helpful in understanding that style than others' books I've studied.
Some conclusions I've come to:
The 4 finger CAGED and Leavitt approach is a more mastering music on your instrument sort of approach. More of an approach where that is more open to possibilities musically. It's not so much about jazz as it is about having a good way to master playing the guitar in a variety of styles.
The 3 finger approach is something I think more of as a guitar styles approach as opposed to the "all music" approach. I don't think it's based as much as playing scales in positions. Trying to adapt in that direction from the 4 finger approach is almost fruitless. The 3 finger approach is typically more about phrases and arpeggios than scales - which may be one reason why people might consider it to be more musical.
On reflection - I did a lot of scale learning starting from the lowest note in a position, playing to the top of that position and then descending again. This is pretty contrary to what most of us would call good music. When I experimented with keeping my soloing to the top 4 strings I felt things came into focus a little better. Especially in respect to what some of the great guitar stylists do. (I still have a strong tendency to "over scale" in my improvising when I don't really have a good musical thought - i.e. most of the time).
Another big part is how you hold the instrument (or posture). There are several variables in this, but take note of how Django and Wes held their guitars - pretty much with the neck almost parallel to the floor. It's nearly impossible (if not impractical) to work through the Leavitt system like this. Of course there are exceptions (Tal Farlow comes to mind - I understand he had really big hands). The neck down approach is naturally more limiting and hence could lead to more of a guitar style. It also involves having to use a tilted left (fingering) hand technique. The neck up postion - more like a classical posture - is more suited to a variety of fingerings all over the neck. Also the left hand can use more of a perpendicular or right angle approach, as well as a tilted left hand if so desired.
The lowered neck approach has a similar affect has tilting the neck up but holding the body of the instrument lower instead of up closer to the chest.
In summary:
3 finger approach and posture - stylistically limiting but perhaps more musically compelling.
4 finger approach and posture - probably more adaptable to more music.
One more thing in closing - It's pretty difficult if not impossible to get far with a new approach, technique, style, whatever, without giving yourself over to it totally, as in leaving the old approach behind. The times I've had some success in learning a new style, I've done it by restricting myself to only that. If you're currently working steadily then trying to add a playing style that requires different techniques and fingerings, will likely be pretty frustrating.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
When I Was A Kid...
...things were a lot simpler.
I first started getting serious about playing the guitar when I was about 17 around 1974. It seemed resources for learning guitar - especially popular music were pretty slim. Not to mention growing up in a small town didn’t really help matters on that account either. Other than buying sheet music arrangements for popular tunes, there wasn’t much in the way of tutorials around. If you wanted to learn popular or rock music accurately, by gosh you had to do it the old fashioned way - by ear.
My first instrument wasn’t guitar - it was cello and I had been indoctrinated into a formal way of learning classical instruments - even the Suzuki method was not popular yet - so there was very little “ear” playing experience for me. Consequently, all of my guitar playing peers and buddies were far ahead of me in the playing by ear department.
I remember the first time I saw a Guitar Player magazine. Holy cow, a magazine just for guitar players? I couldn’t believe it! A drummer friend of mine who also played guitar gave it to me. There was a lesson in there by Joe Pass. I memorized that little lesson and still use it to this day.
I also remember when to my knowledge the first accurate transcription of rock guitar soloing was published - the Led Zeppelin “Complete” songbook had solos by Jimmy Page actually written out. I seem to recall a general feeling at the time that blues and rock guitar soloing couldn’t really be notated. Yet magically someone had pulled it off.
Curiously, it seemed to me that most of my local guitar playing buddies had an attitude that if someone learned a piece of music by reading it instead of by ear they were somehow cheating. Just seemed like a means to an end to me. How else was I going to learn “Mood For A Day” by Yes’ Steve Howe? Heck I was just starting on guitar. And, there was no guitar arrangement available. I ended up learning it off of a combination of reading a piano reduction on sheet music and listening to the recording. Piano reductions with little guitar chord grids above the legit notation was the popular way of publishing at that time. Leave it to music publishers to take a solo guitar piece and publish it as a piano reduction. Ah, 1974.
With the proper tutelage I came to better understand how music composition worked and what to listen for and gradually after much practice got pretty good at learning songs by ear. Definitely something every guitarist should do. It’s turned out to be handy to have as many tactics for learning as I could get together.
I guess what I’m getting to is that now, there is a virtual flood of guitar information available. How in the world is any 17 year old supposed to wade through all that’s available and figure out what’s worth spending time on on their own? It was easy for me, there practically wasn’t any. Problem solved!
I brought in some recent issues of Guitar Player magazine to my teaching studio recently and had one of my students pick one for himself. It’s been weeks now - he hasn’t even looked at it. I wonder if when he does, will he find a timeless treasure that he uses for a lifetime like I did when I was his age, or will it be one more piece of information overload he doesn’t select to absorb?
I first started getting serious about playing the guitar when I was about 17 around 1974. It seemed resources for learning guitar - especially popular music were pretty slim. Not to mention growing up in a small town didn’t really help matters on that account either. Other than buying sheet music arrangements for popular tunes, there wasn’t much in the way of tutorials around. If you wanted to learn popular or rock music accurately, by gosh you had to do it the old fashioned way - by ear.
My first instrument wasn’t guitar - it was cello and I had been indoctrinated into a formal way of learning classical instruments - even the Suzuki method was not popular yet - so there was very little “ear” playing experience for me. Consequently, all of my guitar playing peers and buddies were far ahead of me in the playing by ear department.
I remember the first time I saw a Guitar Player magazine. Holy cow, a magazine just for guitar players? I couldn’t believe it! A drummer friend of mine who also played guitar gave it to me. There was a lesson in there by Joe Pass. I memorized that little lesson and still use it to this day.
I also remember when to my knowledge the first accurate transcription of rock guitar soloing was published - the Led Zeppelin “Complete” songbook had solos by Jimmy Page actually written out. I seem to recall a general feeling at the time that blues and rock guitar soloing couldn’t really be notated. Yet magically someone had pulled it off.
Curiously, it seemed to me that most of my local guitar playing buddies had an attitude that if someone learned a piece of music by reading it instead of by ear they were somehow cheating. Just seemed like a means to an end to me. How else was I going to learn “Mood For A Day” by Yes’ Steve Howe? Heck I was just starting on guitar. And, there was no guitar arrangement available. I ended up learning it off of a combination of reading a piano reduction on sheet music and listening to the recording. Piano reductions with little guitar chord grids above the legit notation was the popular way of publishing at that time. Leave it to music publishers to take a solo guitar piece and publish it as a piano reduction. Ah, 1974.
With the proper tutelage I came to better understand how music composition worked and what to listen for and gradually after much practice got pretty good at learning songs by ear. Definitely something every guitarist should do. It’s turned out to be handy to have as many tactics for learning as I could get together.
I guess what I’m getting to is that now, there is a virtual flood of guitar information available. How in the world is any 17 year old supposed to wade through all that’s available and figure out what’s worth spending time on on their own? It was easy for me, there practically wasn’t any. Problem solved!
I brought in some recent issues of Guitar Player magazine to my teaching studio recently and had one of my students pick one for himself. It’s been weeks now - he hasn’t even looked at it. I wonder if when he does, will he find a timeless treasure that he uses for a lifetime like I did when I was his age, or will it be one more piece of information overload he doesn’t select to absorb?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Self Taught
What does it mean when people claim to be “self taught”? I’ve heard this from and about musicians of all calibers throughout the years. I think non-musicians may have a different view of what it means than musicians do.
A lot of the world’s greatest musicians have claims of being self taught. It applies all the way from world class musicians from the past. I’ve heard that such classical music luminaries as guitarist Andres Segovia and cellist Pablo Casals were self taught as well as Eric Clapton, your “uncle who can play anything” and that kid that lives on your street who’s starting a garage band. Yet what do we find when we look deeper?
Eric Clapton reported to Guitar Player Magazine in 1970 that “The way I learned to play was, I picked up the guitar and pieced together a chord out of the sounds without knowing they were chords that had names like E and A. I was inventing those things when I first started to play.” It’s not something that seems that unusual to me. I think a lot of musicians, guitarists in particular, do a lot of experimentation. Maybe it’s the nature of the instrument.
Both Segovia and Casals had some formal study if only for a short while and sometimes on different instruments than than the ones they were famous for. One of the key elements of these outstanding musicians, as true now as then, is originality. They both made major original breakthroughs in music by assessing the current state of their respective instruments and finding new and better ways to do things.
In the case of Segovia, among other breakthroughs, he introduced they idea of using the right hand fingernails to get a bigger tone. No classical guitarist today would even consider playing without nails but yet until he saw the need and addressed it, it was uncommon. He also asked for bigger guitars and better strings. Seems pretty obvious now, but he had enough influence, insight, and originality to ask for those things and get them.
Where would our current crop of rock guitarists be without Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, etc.? Listening to these past guitar heroes now, the uninitiated may wonder, what’s so special about those cats? The thing is, the styles they brought to the table were original at the time, and so well liked, that now there influence is ubiquitous and taken for granted.
Everyone has influences and early on, musicians tend to mimic their heroes. I used to joke that I learned to play from Billy Gibbons of Z.Z. Top. Never having had the honor of meeting the man however, I made do with learning from his recordings. Wes Montgomery studied and memorized the solos of Charlie Christian - yet later on he managed to develop his own style. When Chet Atkins was getting started in the record business he was told he sounded too jazzy - his early influences included the original gypsy jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt - yet Atkins turned things around for himself devoting himself to creating and developing a new style of playing (based on a different artist - Merle Travis).
Wes and Chet, Hendrix, Page, Clapton and probably Billy Gibbons too, were undoubtedly all self taught (as were their main influences Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt) yet they had to learn from somewhere, if only by observation. Clapton recounts “I did a lot of listening—particularly to blues. I never took lessons, but I always wanted to jam a lot.” Jamming can be thought of as a trial and error means of learning and something that goes on a lot in music that is traditionally improvised to some degree like blues and jazz. A form of discovery and self-teaching.
We listen, we observe, we get together and trade licks and information with our friends, and read and apply articles from guitar magazines, from the web, etc. If we have the benefit of formal lessons from competent instructors then all the better. In a way all of my students over the years have all been self taught. Some learned a lot and still others learned little. I’ve just given them information and tried to open their eyes to possibilities. Led the horse to water if you will. If anything was actually learned they’ve done it all themselves. Plus they’re the ones who got the ball rolling with guitar lessons.
Is anyone self taught? In a way both everyone is and no one is. No one is because no man is an island, we all work from our influences to some degree, but in the end, everyone is because it’s all up to the individual.
A lot of the world’s greatest musicians have claims of being self taught. It applies all the way from world class musicians from the past. I’ve heard that such classical music luminaries as guitarist Andres Segovia and cellist Pablo Casals were self taught as well as Eric Clapton, your “uncle who can play anything” and that kid that lives on your street who’s starting a garage band. Yet what do we find when we look deeper?
Eric Clapton reported to Guitar Player Magazine in 1970 that “The way I learned to play was, I picked up the guitar and pieced together a chord out of the sounds without knowing they were chords that had names like E and A. I was inventing those things when I first started to play.” It’s not something that seems that unusual to me. I think a lot of musicians, guitarists in particular, do a lot of experimentation. Maybe it’s the nature of the instrument.
Both Segovia and Casals had some formal study if only for a short while and sometimes on different instruments than than the ones they were famous for. One of the key elements of these outstanding musicians, as true now as then, is originality. They both made major original breakthroughs in music by assessing the current state of their respective instruments and finding new and better ways to do things.
In the case of Segovia, among other breakthroughs, he introduced they idea of using the right hand fingernails to get a bigger tone. No classical guitarist today would even consider playing without nails but yet until he saw the need and addressed it, it was uncommon. He also asked for bigger guitars and better strings. Seems pretty obvious now, but he had enough influence, insight, and originality to ask for those things and get them.
Where would our current crop of rock guitarists be without Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, etc.? Listening to these past guitar heroes now, the uninitiated may wonder, what’s so special about those cats? The thing is, the styles they brought to the table were original at the time, and so well liked, that now there influence is ubiquitous and taken for granted.
Everyone has influences and early on, musicians tend to mimic their heroes. I used to joke that I learned to play from Billy Gibbons of Z.Z. Top. Never having had the honor of meeting the man however, I made do with learning from his recordings. Wes Montgomery studied and memorized the solos of Charlie Christian - yet later on he managed to develop his own style. When Chet Atkins was getting started in the record business he was told he sounded too jazzy - his early influences included the original gypsy jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt - yet Atkins turned things around for himself devoting himself to creating and developing a new style of playing (based on a different artist - Merle Travis).
Wes and Chet, Hendrix, Page, Clapton and probably Billy Gibbons too, were undoubtedly all self taught (as were their main influences Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt) yet they had to learn from somewhere, if only by observation. Clapton recounts “I did a lot of listening—particularly to blues. I never took lessons, but I always wanted to jam a lot.” Jamming can be thought of as a trial and error means of learning and something that goes on a lot in music that is traditionally improvised to some degree like blues and jazz. A form of discovery and self-teaching.
We listen, we observe, we get together and trade licks and information with our friends, and read and apply articles from guitar magazines, from the web, etc. If we have the benefit of formal lessons from competent instructors then all the better. In a way all of my students over the years have all been self taught. Some learned a lot and still others learned little. I’ve just given them information and tried to open their eyes to possibilities. Led the horse to water if you will. If anything was actually learned they’ve done it all themselves. Plus they’re the ones who got the ball rolling with guitar lessons.
Is anyone self taught? In a way both everyone is and no one is. No one is because no man is an island, we all work from our influences to some degree, but in the end, everyone is because it’s all up to the individual.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Unexpected Influences
They come from all over. Sometimes it’s a performance. Sometimes you know right away. Sometimes it takes some looking back.
Once when I was probably somewhere between the ages of 17 or 18 (around 1974-75) the local university (NSU of Louisiana) sponsored a concert featuring the Buddy Rich Big Band. Everyone had heard of the famous Buddy Rich and I was anticipating the concert with great excitement. It was really a good experience for me - I had never seen anything like that before. The way he worked his playing into the arrangements was so exciting! And the way he connected the tunes to each other setting up segues so that the music didn’t stop. The tunes just flowed right into each other. Around that time I was starting to get passionate about guitar playing and being unfamiliar with big band jazz I was anxious to see if they had a guitarist and what his role might be.
There was a little guy with a big guitar and when his turn came to solo - wow! The notes came out of the guitar like it was on fire. Long phrases of incendiary lines but with none of the rock sounds I was used to hearing. Who was this guy? No one I knew had any idea. What I did know was that I had never seen or heard anything like that before and it introduced me to a whole different way to think about guitar and music.
I can imagine the band rolling from town to town playing hundreds of these little gigs on campuses everywhere never giving a thought to much else besides making it through this gig and heading for the next. What they probably never imagined is the impact they may have on one person and what a difference it can make, even at a university or a whole community.
To my delight when I graduated from the Berklee College of Music in 1980 who was on stage to shake my hand and give me my diploma? Along with composer John Williams, it was Buddy Rich! Yes!
Years later in my forties, I discovered the music of a guitarist Jimmy Bruno. As I learned more about him, I found out he had played with The Buddy Rich Big Band. It was him! He was the guy tearing it up in the Buddy Rich band when I was a kid! When Jimmy Bruno started his Jimmy Bruno Guitar Institute (JBGI) a few years ago, an online approach to guitar study, I was eager to see what I could learn from him. In that first round of study, I stayed with it for only about 3 months, but in that time I learned critical information that I now incorporate into my playing all the time, and also share with my own students. My students at the university. Where the Buddy Rich Big Band played. So long ago. When I was seventeen.
I guess one of the morals of this story is when you’re performing, whether you’re touring the country or just playing locally, your never know who you’ll influence or what that will lead to. So try to be your best whenever you perform.
I’ve had a whole host of influences, and there are many people I need to say thank you to. In this case - thank you Jimmy Bruno. Your dedication has personally affected me and those I influence as well.
Once when I was probably somewhere between the ages of 17 or 18 (around 1974-75) the local university (NSU of Louisiana) sponsored a concert featuring the Buddy Rich Big Band. Everyone had heard of the famous Buddy Rich and I was anticipating the concert with great excitement. It was really a good experience for me - I had never seen anything like that before. The way he worked his playing into the arrangements was so exciting! And the way he connected the tunes to each other setting up segues so that the music didn’t stop. The tunes just flowed right into each other. Around that time I was starting to get passionate about guitar playing and being unfamiliar with big band jazz I was anxious to see if they had a guitarist and what his role might be.
There was a little guy with a big guitar and when his turn came to solo - wow! The notes came out of the guitar like it was on fire. Long phrases of incendiary lines but with none of the rock sounds I was used to hearing. Who was this guy? No one I knew had any idea. What I did know was that I had never seen or heard anything like that before and it introduced me to a whole different way to think about guitar and music.
I can imagine the band rolling from town to town playing hundreds of these little gigs on campuses everywhere never giving a thought to much else besides making it through this gig and heading for the next. What they probably never imagined is the impact they may have on one person and what a difference it can make, even at a university or a whole community.
To my delight when I graduated from the Berklee College of Music in 1980 who was on stage to shake my hand and give me my diploma? Along with composer John Williams, it was Buddy Rich! Yes!
Years later in my forties, I discovered the music of a guitarist Jimmy Bruno. As I learned more about him, I found out he had played with The Buddy Rich Big Band. It was him! He was the guy tearing it up in the Buddy Rich band when I was a kid! When Jimmy Bruno started his Jimmy Bruno Guitar Institute (JBGI) a few years ago, an online approach to guitar study, I was eager to see what I could learn from him. In that first round of study, I stayed with it for only about 3 months, but in that time I learned critical information that I now incorporate into my playing all the time, and also share with my own students. My students at the university. Where the Buddy Rich Big Band played. So long ago. When I was seventeen.
I guess one of the morals of this story is when you’re performing, whether you’re touring the country or just playing locally, your never know who you’ll influence or what that will lead to. So try to be your best whenever you perform.
I’ve had a whole host of influences, and there are many people I need to say thank you to. In this case - thank you Jimmy Bruno. Your dedication has personally affected me and those I influence as well.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
My Uncle Can Play Anything
Some people have a gift, knack, or talent, call it what you will, for music. Not just music of course, as there are many skills to be considered but as we all know music is “where I live”.
I think it’s safe to say we’re all born with certain aptitudes or lack thereof and continue to develop or not develop those from early on. Science has shown we’re not really “empty vessels” but are born with certain innate characteristics. Talents are not so much like a light switch that’s either on or off. You can get none, some, or a lot. What we do with what we get is up to us. I think a lot of people (and I put myself in this category) manage to get just enough to get ourselves in trouble.
Why bring this up? As a working guitarist, I’m occasionally informed by non-musician acquaintances (and undoubtedly other musicians have this experience) about relatives and/or friends who can “play anything” meaning of course any instrument (i.e. “My uncle can play anything). These fountains of talent and giftitude can apparently pick up any musical instrument, be it piano, guitar, flugelhorn, violin or saxophone, with absolutely no previous experience or training, and draw from it limitless rivers of impressive repertoire. By all accounts they just “know” what to do without ever thinking about it. They’ve never spent any time practicing. They’ve never considered studying music theory. Why should they? They just have a gift.
Invariably these freaks of nature are never actually musicians. Why do I say this? I’ve been hanging around musicians for well over forty years and have performed in more different kinds of ensembles that I care to list, and have never met one of these prodigies that have never practiced. Now I’m not talking about musicians who are multi-instrumentalists who work hard at their craft(s) - no, no, no. These wonders of mankind have apparently never given their gifts a second thought nor paid for or attended one music lesson, and never spent an hour practicing, yet by all accounts they are absolutely terrific at playing any music on any instrument at professional levels.
These bits of information that are passed on to me, along with comments such as “you should check out so and so...he’s REALLY good” serve to point out to me things which I am not. Naturally gifted and “really” good. That’s okay with me. I know where I stand in the world. I’ve met, seen, and heard, and even a few times been on stage with real world class musicians. I never kid myself about what I can and can’t do. I tend to think of myself as just a guy who likes to play guitar...maybe a little too much.
That there are people in the world with more musical talent than myself is not news to me. The world is loaded full up with prodigies and talented people. Just a visit to a few local churches will show you that along with the ordinary folks there are a few who can really sing their butts off. They’re not musicians. They’re not tending and feeding and exploiting their talents. They’re not paying their dues in the music world or reaping the rewards. They just can sing well and enjoy doing that in church. I’m totally cool with that. More power to them and their ilk. Even I can say I’ve known two sisters, who even at a very young age of maybe 6 or 7 would sing duets that would knock you off your chair. Precocious as hell (neither went on to become a musician by the way).
What I want is for one of these mystery talents, who are some miraculous musical multi-instrumental prodigies that I’m not, to show themselves dammit. Where are you hiding? Reveal your awesome unstudied musical gifts to me!
And while your at it I’d like you stop by one of my gigs and bring forth your guitar, violin, and saxophone so that you may blow me away with how well you can improvise through the changes of “Cherokee”, “Ornithology”, and “All The Things You Are” without ever having studied or practiced even a single minute. Afterwards you can regale anyone within earshot with your rendition of “Giant Steps” or maybe dazzle listeners with a Paganini Caprice or two. All. Without. Ever. Practicing.
See you then...I’ll be waiting! I long for it. It’ll be a pleasure to meet you. And if you turn out to be some long lost uncle of mine - even better! Because I’d like to be one of those who can say “I’ve got an uncle who can play ANYTHING!”.
I think it’s safe to say we’re all born with certain aptitudes or lack thereof and continue to develop or not develop those from early on. Science has shown we’re not really “empty vessels” but are born with certain innate characteristics. Talents are not so much like a light switch that’s either on or off. You can get none, some, or a lot. What we do with what we get is up to us. I think a lot of people (and I put myself in this category) manage to get just enough to get ourselves in trouble.
Why bring this up? As a working guitarist, I’m occasionally informed by non-musician acquaintances (and undoubtedly other musicians have this experience) about relatives and/or friends who can “play anything” meaning of course any instrument (i.e. “My uncle can play anything). These fountains of talent and giftitude can apparently pick up any musical instrument, be it piano, guitar, flugelhorn, violin or saxophone, with absolutely no previous experience or training, and draw from it limitless rivers of impressive repertoire. By all accounts they just “know” what to do without ever thinking about it. They’ve never spent any time practicing. They’ve never considered studying music theory. Why should they? They just have a gift.
Invariably these freaks of nature are never actually musicians. Why do I say this? I’ve been hanging around musicians for well over forty years and have performed in more different kinds of ensembles that I care to list, and have never met one of these prodigies that have never practiced. Now I’m not talking about musicians who are multi-instrumentalists who work hard at their craft(s) - no, no, no. These wonders of mankind have apparently never given their gifts a second thought nor paid for or attended one music lesson, and never spent an hour practicing, yet by all accounts they are absolutely terrific at playing any music on any instrument at professional levels.
These bits of information that are passed on to me, along with comments such as “you should check out so and so...he’s REALLY good” serve to point out to me things which I am not. Naturally gifted and “really” good. That’s okay with me. I know where I stand in the world. I’ve met, seen, and heard, and even a few times been on stage with real world class musicians. I never kid myself about what I can and can’t do. I tend to think of myself as just a guy who likes to play guitar...maybe a little too much.
That there are people in the world with more musical talent than myself is not news to me. The world is loaded full up with prodigies and talented people. Just a visit to a few local churches will show you that along with the ordinary folks there are a few who can really sing their butts off. They’re not musicians. They’re not tending and feeding and exploiting their talents. They’re not paying their dues in the music world or reaping the rewards. They just can sing well and enjoy doing that in church. I’m totally cool with that. More power to them and their ilk. Even I can say I’ve known two sisters, who even at a very young age of maybe 6 or 7 would sing duets that would knock you off your chair. Precocious as hell (neither went on to become a musician by the way).
What I want is for one of these mystery talents, who are some miraculous musical multi-instrumental prodigies that I’m not, to show themselves dammit. Where are you hiding? Reveal your awesome unstudied musical gifts to me!
And while your at it I’d like you stop by one of my gigs and bring forth your guitar, violin, and saxophone so that you may blow me away with how well you can improvise through the changes of “Cherokee”, “Ornithology”, and “All The Things You Are” without ever having studied or practiced even a single minute. Afterwards you can regale anyone within earshot with your rendition of “Giant Steps” or maybe dazzle listeners with a Paganini Caprice or two. All. Without. Ever. Practicing.
See you then...I’ll be waiting! I long for it. It’ll be a pleasure to meet you. And if you turn out to be some long lost uncle of mine - even better! Because I’d like to be one of those who can say “I’ve got an uncle who can play ANYTHING!”.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Art Is Like A Coin
...there are two sides, don’tcha know?
Let’s talk art as related to music and guitar playing because that’s my only comfort zone.
Let’s call one side of the coin technical and the other side expression. They’re entirely different yet infinitely adhered. Each unable to exist without the other, yet always at odds.
The technical side enables the expression side to express freely and the artistic side always needs to disregard the technical side. The artist requires two mindsets, one to build up technical ability (the practicing side of things) and another to forget about all that practicing and just play (the performing side of things). It's quite the dichotomy and all very, very human.
Performing is no fun when I’m willing things to happen on the guitar that don't come true because there's not enough practice time behind me. It's always a struggle to some degree, but as long as I can keep it on the positive side of things then overall it is fun. Sometimes my performances feel like one long struggle, and other times when every note I will into being materializes just the way I imagined. I guess that's art. You never really know what you're going to get. Just prepare as much as you can and roll the dice.
I sometimes tell my students it takes a dedicated artist to play beautifully - any schmuck can play aggressively. When we can achieve beauty we're mastering the instrument instead of the instrument mastering us. That allows a much broader range of expression.
Practice is practice and performance is performance. Let’s not get the two mixed up. It’s best when like a coin - one side can’t see what the other is doing but can exist in comfort knowing it’s there.
Let’s talk art as related to music and guitar playing because that’s my only comfort zone.
Let’s call one side of the coin technical and the other side expression. They’re entirely different yet infinitely adhered. Each unable to exist without the other, yet always at odds.
The technical side enables the expression side to express freely and the artistic side always needs to disregard the technical side. The artist requires two mindsets, one to build up technical ability (the practicing side of things) and another to forget about all that practicing and just play (the performing side of things). It's quite the dichotomy and all very, very human.
Performing is no fun when I’m willing things to happen on the guitar that don't come true because there's not enough practice time behind me. It's always a struggle to some degree, but as long as I can keep it on the positive side of things then overall it is fun. Sometimes my performances feel like one long struggle, and other times when every note I will into being materializes just the way I imagined. I guess that's art. You never really know what you're going to get. Just prepare as much as you can and roll the dice.
I sometimes tell my students it takes a dedicated artist to play beautifully - any schmuck can play aggressively. When we can achieve beauty we're mastering the instrument instead of the instrument mastering us. That allows a much broader range of expression.
Practice is practice and performance is performance. Let’s not get the two mixed up. It’s best when like a coin - one side can’t see what the other is doing but can exist in comfort knowing it’s there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
