I stumbled on a couple of threads at the TalkBass forum that made me think about the Stick and certain styles of playing it.

In one from 2003 a poster talks about taking a pianist friend of his to a solo Stick concert and the pianist claiming that the Stickist used a "gimmick technique."

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/chapman-stick-75515/index3.html#post896062

Also a more recent thread in which Greg participated wherein he made the case against seeing the Stick as a "gimmick":

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f30/chapman-stick-738173/index3.html

I think these two threads bring up two related but different questions. One being whether certain Stick techniques could be considered gimmicks and another as to whether the Stick itself is a gimmick. The second I find to be borne of closed-mindedness and I think Greg answers it pretty well in his post. I'm more interested in the first question regarding technique.

Without knowing what kind of technique that Stickist was using that the pianist commented on it's difficult to speak to exactly what "gimmick technique" means, but I'd wager that it has something to do with the exploitation of non-linear interplay between the two hands to achieve lines and figures that would be more difficult if played only one side of the instrument. Of course this could just be chalked up to a issue of perspective as one could view this merely as a strength of the instrument and the technique instead of a gimmick.

As an example I'm sure we've all had the experience of playing a melodic line by alternating hands for every other note of the figure. Although this technique comes with its own special set of issues like coordination and maintaining evenness between the hands, the experience is normally that of being able to play a line with much more speed that one could using one hand on a monophonic instrument. I know that in my experience the idea of "cheating" has crossed my mind in the process of executing such a technique, mostly likely a product of starting on monophonic instruments and polyphonic instruments without registral redundancy (piano). The construction of the instrument and (to a lesser degree) the type of tuning play a role in affording such a technique. Having two sides that can be conceived as discreet "instruments" with redundant registers can increase the flexibility even further (think the difference between playing a scale in a uniform fourths tuning with irregular alternation of the hands vs. playing the same scale in a matched reciprocal tuning with regular alternation of the hands). So I guess once again the tuning, technique, and instrument design are inextricably tied regarding this issue.

So for the sake of discussion: Is it somehow technically or even musically lesser that the Stick affords such a technique that other instruments don't? Is it a gimmick?

Dave

Hmmm...

I'm sure that many instuments (or their subsequent evolutions) may have been described as 'gimmicks' at the time. I still hear string players rail against guitarists and electric bass players with the whole "we don't need frets - learn how to play a proper instrument" argument, which shows an element of the gimmick argument. I'm sure none of these players would have heckled Segovia this way!

I think that the proof of any instrument is acceptance and subsequent longevity. Since I moved into the stick in late 2009 (from a piano and bass background), there seems to have been a tremendous uptake (particularly in my country, Australia). Instead of there being 5 - 10 players in the country there's probably more like 30 - 40 (I'm sure Emmett has more exact numbers). That's significant adoption over a reasonably short space of time. Perhaps the Stick is finally achieving the groundswell for which we've all been hoping.

I can understand the technique being described as a gimmick. Guitarists started doing flashy things with hammering techniques and bass players learned to slap and pop strings, producing different sounds and feels. However, the only way a Stick can produce a sound is by tapping or hammering. It is then up to the inventor (and exponents) of the instrument to devise successful (and teachable) technique to bring out expression and musicality. Emmett, Greg, Steve, Bob and numerous others have devoted huge amounts time to devising this and helping educate us noobs, so that we can pass it on in turn. This investment, carried from teacher to student, establishes bona fides. if Beethoven hadn't taught Liszt and Liszt hadn't taught Czerny and Czerny hadn't taught Arau and Arau hadn't taught Rothen, and Rothen hadn't taught Snedden and he hadn't taught me, I would know nothing of the piano technique established by Beethoven, which is widely accepted today.

Ultimately the difference between a gimmick and a serious instrument (or technique) is us and our exploration and evangelism of it.

Just my thoughts...
Sam

Good points. Change can be hard for people to wrap their heads around and not react emotionally to it.

I was watching Steve's "Ultimate Stick" DVD a bit ago and got to a part where talked about the idea of "orchestrating" with the Stick. The idea that you might be playing something rather unremarkable in the left hand but combined with what you're doing in the right makes it a more sophisticated musical idea. I think that's a good way of looking at this so-called "gimmickry."

P.S.:



I think that was the other way around with Liszt and Czerny, and Czerny was surely dead before Arrau was ever born.

I stand corrected - where's my brain! Czerny taught Liszt who taught Krause who taught Arrau! Thanks.

I don't see it as "lesser", I see it as "greater" - not a gimmick, but a unique and intrinsic characteristic of the instrument and the Free Hands technique in general, which of course gives the player certain advantages, but I don't think that they're unfair ones. Some of the techniques of playing the instrument still take a lot of practice and skill to perform, as can be seen by watching any of the great players out there. And, it strikes me, that there are things which can only be done with the scope which the instrument and technique afford.
(Just my 10 yen's worth... )

Seems to me that judging something as a gimmick means it's either right or wrong as measured against some external standard that's agreed on. No such standard exists as far as I know (speed of light is exactly "X", water boils at "X" tempature at sea level, playing you Stick in a certain way is a gimmick... nah.)

IMHO, art is about what the artist wants to create and how they get there is their choice. Some techniques are inherently more limiting than others (i.e. painting by throwing buckets of paint at a canvas or wood carving with a chainsaw), but if it's what they artist wants to create, who can possibly judge that except as nothing more than a personal opinion?

A great story is told by Edge from U2. On "With or Without You" when it came to the guitar solo, he played the simpliest little open D chord with that little finger suspended chord thing that EVERY guitarist in the known universe has used. It was perfect for the song, and served creating his art brilliantly. Did he have more advanced techniques he could use? Yep. Was it cheating to use something simple and easy to create his music? Nope.

Bang a stick on a rock if that's the art you really want to create, and screw the critics.

Karma

Derek and Karma bring up some good points. Is there really such thing as "unfair" in music? Can a technique really be called "cheating"?

It reminds me of the relationships between instrumentalists, "producers" and DJs. Seems there's a continuum of judgement values based on what people do. Producers will say DJs aren't musicians, instrumentalists will say neither producers or DJs are.

This probably gets into a bigger question of musical advancement in technology and instrument design. Lots of composers in the academy are challenging the definitions of instruments and therefore challenging the conventions and traditions of who can be a performer. A person can now dance in front of an Xbox Kinect and make music. Are they then a musician?

I'm of a strong belief that *anyone* can perform in one fashion or another, and in doing so enjoy many of the benefits from participating in the arts. I also feel there are degrees of proficiency that come from hard work and yes, talent. The level of degree between "novice," "hobbiest/enthusiast," and "professional" can become somewhat blurred, however.

IMHO, of course.

I'm sorry I just realized that really *doesn't* answer your question, does it?

Perhaps there's a bit of a sting that comes when ones senses that their hard work has somehow been supplanted by technology that affords others the opportunity to do something similar with less effort?




It's not as much about answering the questions as it is about hearing people's ideas on the subject.

A keytar is a gimmic instrument. I looks different than a standard keyboard while limiting your technique. The appeal of a keytar is 99% visual. At least that is my perspective. I would call something like that a gimmick.

I think you could potentially use the stick as a visual gimmick. As in fretting and plucking the strings, and only have an interest in the bodyless shape of the stick...
Although I imagine some people thing the look of a stick is pretty cool, I can't imagine anyone would use a stick exclusively for the look of it. At the very least, the string set distinguishes it from guitars and basses to always give the stick a different set of possibilities from other instruments. I suppose it is possible to use the stick for visual appeal alone, but I can't imagine anyone would do it for long.

A stick just an instrument. All techniques on a stick are just different possibilities of the instrument.

I'm not sure I really feel that any technique is a gimmick. Some may be overused in some circumstances, but I think the technique is without a trait of "gimmickness." Song composition perhaps is another story.