Food for Thought

For the longest time, I’ve been of the opinion that, the more techniques I learned and practiced, the more it would help me with the style of music I wanted to express. To some degree this is true. IMO, the more techniques I learn the better equipped I will be to express myself. But the more I play, the more I notice that I’m not expressing what I hear in my head. At least not in the style I like.
In the mixed martial arts that I teach, style per se does not enter into the picture. The more techniques and forms you know, the better prepared for the unexpected you are.

So here’s the question. Do the techniques you learn and practice determine the style in which you ultimately play or does the style you want to play determine which techniques you should learn and concentrate on?
I understand that both are factors in creating a piece of art/work. But in the framework of mental focus, which comes first?
I generally like all kinds of music and styles (R&B, Funk, Prog, Smooth Jazz, Soul, New World, etc…), but what really gets to me is music that generates deep feelings. Music, when played, seems to generate a sonic tapestry that envelops the listener. Something that the listener feels and takes away with them, not just hears and forgets about the minute they leave the show. When I think about composers/artists of the past, each had his/her, what seems like specific style. It was a style that, when you heard it, you knew who it was. Now, I’m beginning to wonder if the technique each used was what defined the style (and what I actually noticed), or did the style each wanted to express drive them to develop the technique they used. Reading back on some of the articles on Emmett about developing the Stick, (I may be wrong) but it appears that Emmett had a style of music he was interested in, (Improvisational based), and so developed a technique that would better fit the style. Then, over time, developed an instrument that would better fit the technique that would ultimately allow him to express the style he wanted to play.

http://www.stick.com/articles/evolution/

Thanks Greg for the link.

As a solo performer, IMHO, it makes a difference on my frame of mind when approaching practice. I have the, what I believe, perfect instrument to express myself (the NS/Stick). Internally and mentally, I have the drive. What I seek, is what to ultimately focus on, technique or style. Knowing that each of us has his/her own “style”, the desire for a particular sound, melody, or composition has to start somewhere.

In my previous topic “Band or Solo?” Several people alluded to that inner desire or “calling”, and it’s possibilities that’s drawing us as Stickists to our beautiful instruments. That “calling”, to produce more, to be better, to express ourselves in a way that we weren’t able to in the past seems to be a big part of our journey.
Any thoughts?

Burnis

B'jeez...you know how to start a thread don't you?!!

I think I subscribe to the 'try and be ready for anything' approach...so I'll never reach my goal...always guilt-tripping myself that I'm not doing enough. I suspect that those who are lucky enough to decide on a 'style' are much happier. Hope this doesn't sound too pessimistic...it's all about the journey isn't it?

Hi,

If you want to be fulfilled as a musician, you have to follow your "heart". It's the only way IMO to stop music from becoming just another "job" or "hobby". I say be brave, play what you love and make your technique follow.

I heard a great speech last night at a knitting expo of all places (I do get some strange gigs!). The speaker made a point about ART being one of the only things that human beings engage in which serves no obvious evolutionary purpose (RELIGION being another example). So why do we do it?

Cheers,
Andy

You say it well and you say it right, Andy.

From the beginning, I'm learning to play the Stick simply by learning songs I love. Some of them require new technical skills. I have to assimilate new tricks that I can later use on other songs. Learning to play an instrument by interpreting MUSIC you love is much more rewarding than struggling with purely technical issues.

Olivier

Hi Burnis,

I like your reference to martial arts. As an improvisor, I take the analogy to heart.

In music, preparation and training can help you realize your artistic goals as long as they do not become the goal in and of themselves. Call it the "critique of pure technique," but technique without musical intent is pointless.

But to the people who dismiss technique as somehow not worth pursuing, I'd say it all depends on the complexity and precision of the music you want to make.

I take Steve's book as a case in point. The lessons in it are basically universal, independent of style or genre. Learn how to use more and more tools and the work you want to do can be more ambitious, more rewarding and more spontaneous, because you won't have to fight with you instrument.

Ultimately, I think it's also more satisfying, but that's just my point of view. Some people are perfectly satisfied to slog away at a bossa nova, satisfied if they manage to get all the notes in without making a mistake. That's not making music, it's playing notes. It's a step toward a larger goal, however, and that is to make music while you play the notes. It's hard to do one without the other.

You can break down any genre into component elements and learn them. just do it a piece at a time and the techniques you need to develop a facility for while be revealed by the music.

Does that answer the question? I didn't think so

Hello all,

I recently read a quote by Marcus Miller (bassist and producer) speaking about working with Miles Davis.

He said (pretty close to this) "You hear some trumpet players play and you think, he must practice a lot. You here Miles play and you think, I had a girlfriend like that."

I found the statement quite amusing, and profound.

Blessings, Lee

I am afraid to be one among these persons you mention, Greg: I mean, just playing the notes of a bossa sounds beautiful to me and I am striving to do so. No more no less. Usually it is hard to improvise with bossa without sounding outrageous. Few people can do it without sounding outrageous. Stan Getz can do it for instance.

In general, there is a big confusion about music when you are talking, I am afraid. You can disconnect music with culture and history but only until a certain point, otherwise it might look a bit irrelevant. What do you call music ? Classical music has been written on sheets of papers since centuries and very few people would dare to play a prelude of Bach, just improvising the notes from Bach's theme. Why ? Maybe because Bach was a genius and every note, every line of music has its own sense and meaning inside the whole score. And that's precisely what does Coltrane when he is improvising, alone or with Miles Davis: in a complete different way to tradition of classical music , each line of improvisation of Coltrane (on bass or treble level with saxophone, he is interlacing voices frequently) has its sense and its meaning, but in respect with the codes of jazz music.

Sorry for my poor english
Cheers

Thanks everyone for the great comments.

Hello Greg,

"In music, preparation and training can help you realize your artistic goals as long as they do not become the goal in and of themselves. Call it the "critique of pure technique," but technique without musical intent is pointless.”

This is very true. IMHO the excitement of finally receiving a new instrument, the instrument of our dreams, the one we’ve been awaiting for months and in some cases years, drives a lot of us to do everything we can, (in most cases, “just something”) technique wise in order to say that we’re playing. Unfortunately though, I think because of this, the ultimate artistic goal is forgotten and takes a back seat, for a while at least. The musical intent is there but the artistic goal is not. Henceforth, the training and preparation become the goal and we have “Stickmusic”. Which, by the way, is a term I absolutely hate. I don’t hear terms like guitarmusic, pianomusic, or hornmusic. But for some reason, non-stickists hear (and don’t necessarily see) music from a stickist and label it Stickmusic with the reason being that “it all sounds the same”. Now, is this because we practice the same techniques and from there mimic teachers and others who have not gotten back to the original goal? I’m not sure. I’ve read many stickists posts claiming that the music that they are playing/practicing is boring or uninspiring. Could it be that they haven’t gotten back to the original goal themselves?


“You can break down any genre into component elements and learn them. just do it a piece at a time and the techniques you need to develop a facility for while be revealed by the music.”


There you go!
What I’m hearing is, knowing the “style/genre” you want to play, break it into it’s component elements or “techniques” and learn them. That’s where the concentration should be, at least for that particular genre. Learning techniques for the sake of learning without the forethought of the “style/genre” of music you want to end up in is likely to lead to, “dare I say?”, at the least, uninspired music and at the most, quitting the stick.

Quitting will never be an option on my plate but for those of you who have put your instrument away for awhile, PICK IT UP AND TRY AGAIN. This time though think, Different Approach.
Just my $.02.

Lee,

Great quote! That’s putting your soul into the music.

Stepphane,

Great response. As you stated, there’s all kinds of music out there. The artists that you mentioned put their own creative touch on the music they played. They reached out and put a piece of their soul into every note. There’s nothing wrong with the Bossa Nova so’s long as that’s what you’re goal is and you do it your way.


Burnis

I think that most great artists have a musical vision and technique is developed to enable that vision to come to light. Style is a label put on music by critics and by people trying to copy an artist or simply to categorize what we hear in order to better understand it. In the case of the stick I think there are many different "styles" of playing I think Emmett, Steve A., Greg and Bob C. are obviously all very different and all very accomplished. They all have used the stick as a means to express a deep musical statement. They are all great musicians. Whether they are great artists is for individuals to decide.
A comparison may be useful. Lets look at the piano. and lets narrow it down to jazz piano. over the decades there have been many advancements in style and techniques in jazz piano.
with each new development pianists were expected to add a bit to their style if they wanted to be hip. Some were satisfied with playing in "older" styles while many gravitated to the new thing. I think great artist do not have to be completely innovative but must say something uniquely their own. Are there techniques which are very common on the stick, yes. does playing them mean that you can't make them your own, no.

In short, I think we should not be afraid to learn techniques from others. And always strive to express the music in you head. that will ultimately create music which others will call your style.

Brett

I was gonna post this seperately but Burnis' last comment puts this in relevance. I just got my Stick back from my Sister's where it's been since the day before my surgery, Mar.31st. So that's 18 days. We'll see what happens.

Marty