Technique: Another good quotation about instrumental technique

[JakeAcci]

"A would-be artist may have the most profound visions, feelings, and insights, but without skill there is no art. The requisite variety that opens up our expressive possibilities comes from practice, play, exercise, exploration, experiment. The effects of nonpractice (or of insufficiently risky practice) are rigidity of heart and body, and an ever-shrinking compass of available variety."

Stephen Nachmanovitch, from Free Play

Technique is tricky. Guitarists tend to focus on playing fast, or tend be impressed by fast playing, but then this causes a backlash of anti-fast sentiment or even anti-technique. I've been in both frames of mind before, being initially obsessed with speed when I was very young, then later looking down on anything involving speed or flash, and now I have a different perspective on the issue.

We need a minimum of technique to play and express ourselves. How much technique depends on the vision. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Also technique isn't just about playing fast, it's accuracy and clarity, especially the ability to be rhythmically precise.

Sorry for the rant, I might have more thoughts later but I've been trying to put all my time into practicing and less into posting lately!

[AlsoRan]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

"A would-be artist may have the most profound visions, feelings, and insights, but without skill there is no art. The requisite variety that opens up our expressive possibilities comes from practice, play, exercise, exploration, experiment. The effects of nonpractice (or of insufficiently risky practice) are rigidity of heart and body, and an ever-shrinking compass of available variety."

Stephen Nachmanovitch, from Free Play

Technique is tricky. Guitarists tend to focus on playing fast, or tend be impressed by fast playing, but then this causes a backlash of anti-fast sentiment or even anti-technique. I've been in both frames of mind before, being initially obsessed with speed when I was very young, then later looking down on anything involving speed or flash, and now I have a different perspective on the issue.

We need a minimum of technique to play and express ourselves. How much technique depends on the vision. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Also technique isn't just about playing fast, it's accuracy and clarity, especially the ability to be rhythmically precise.

Sorry for the rant, I might have more thoughts later but I've been trying to put all my time into practicing and less into posting lately!

Its funny how we tend to all go through the same cycles as we mature. Most of us loved loud music when we were young and now we don't like it as much. I think the same is true of our reverence for speed. Over and over I have read great guitarists going through the "speed phase" in their youth and finally ending up in the phase of just wanting to express themselves and make good music. It becomes more about note selection than about showing off. Took me years to appreciate, for instance, BB King's sparse style of playing but now I love it.

P.S.: When I am hyped up and have one of those high hormone days, I still can appreciate some fast Jazz. It is just does not happen quite as often as it used too.

[Atticus]

I think speed is great for contrast- if you can throw in a quick line in the midst of some slow, laid back playing, it makes the speed stand out more. I'm not a fast player, but I'm working on it for this purpose. It bugs me when guitarists spend all their time working on speed and never learn stuff like good accent picking or vibrato. Horn players are great at this- playing with your lungs allows for much more natural expression than your hands, I think, but that doesn't mean you can't have the same level of expression.

[pierre richard]

well said you guys...

I have not gotten deep enough into the ancient Greek contests where instrument players had "contests" to be the crowned winners on their instruments...

I wonder if speed had anything to do with it...more research needed...

Where is the melody in all of this...didn't joe pass say..the people want to hear the melodies....

time on the instrument..pierre

[backliner]

Speed is just another way to create tension, but should be resolved by landing on the proper note for emphasis.

I'm always amazed when Pat Metheny is blowing, and building tension, until he resolves it and my inner tension gets this huge release, like splitting atoms. Like charging capacitors up and then bleeding them off in a tasty way that speaks to me on some level.

The more colors you have on your pallet (left brain crafts and techniques), the more options you have when you strive to create from the right brain as "art."

[cosmic gumbo]

I thought the only two things that mattered were most expensive guitar and fastest guitarist.

[JakeAcci]

Well, first of all, keep in mind the original quotation was about technique which is not at all synonymous with speed. One can play slowly and have bad technique. Either technique that causes injury, or forces more effort from the player, or just results in inaccuracy .

So in this post I've responded to points by AlsoRan, Pierre, and Atticus, but I'm really just speaking more about the topic, so I apologize if it might appear like I'm jumping on any of you, I'm just speaking about the topic and what I perceive to be misconceptions...

Originally Posted by AlsoRan

Over and over I have read great guitarists going through the "speed phase" in their youth and finally ending up in the phase of just wanting to express themselves and make good music. It becomes more about note selection than about showing off.

Something I was hoping to point out in the thread is that I think it's misguided to assume that if a player plays a fast passage then he is neither expressing himself nor making good music.

Somebody's personal expression might involve playing something that is quick, and an individual's vision of good music, at least the kind that individual wants to make, might involve some (or all) material that is busy.

I think this issue brings up a lot of logical fallacies, or things of that nature. For example, we all agree that speed is usually impressive to the immature ear. But honestly I think some people think that that means that a lack of speed (or a lack of technique!) is more impressive to mature ears. That's such a ridiculous sentiment. "I'm going to play so slow and really wow them!" If anything, it's the same basic egotism and defensiveness - putting other musicians' judgement ahead of a personal creative vision.

A similar logical fallacy is that since many players often use speed as an attempt to prove themselves as competent, "high level" instrumentalists, the only reason somebody would ever play fast is to prove their instrumental competency. It's just not true - maybe often true, but not always. The former statement doesn't prove the latter.

Originally Posted by Atticus

It bugs me when guitarists spend all their time working on speed and never learn stuff like good accent picking or vibrato.

It bugs me when I'm stuck listening to music I don't like. If I'm listening to a guitarist, sometimes it's because his chord vocabulary is stale, or because his tone is bad, or because his lines lack intervallic variety...and often it's because he's not playing in time.

There are a lot of things that a lot of players lack and I'm no exception to that. One of the point I'm making in this thread: playing fast has a lot of stigma associated with it, but there's nothing inherently bad or good about playing fast. Just like anything else, sometimes it's done well, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's done just to show off, sometimes not. The same can be said of composing tunes with 'advanced' harmony, or playing with extra syncopation, or using wide intervals, or even playing sparse - sometimes it's done because the player wants the audience to think that they are advanced, proficient, smart, hip, whatever, and sometimes it's done because the player actually hears music a certain way and is simply trying to present their vision. "Ego can convert anything to its own use" - Chogyam Trungpa

And also let's not associate with technique the negative stigma of 'speed'! Technique is so important! Technique, to me is the question: what's the safest, easiest, most efficient way to do something on the instrument?

Originally Posted by pierre richard

Where is the melody in all of this...didn't joe pass say..the people want to hear the melodies....

Sometimes melodies are quite fast! Melody does not mean an absence of speed, speed does not mean an absence of melody.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

There are a lot of things that a lot of players lack and I'm no exception to that. One of the point I'm making in this thread: playing fast has a lot of stigma associated with it, but there's nothing inherently bad or good about playing fast. Just like anything else, sometimes it's done well, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's done just to show off, sometimes not. The same can be said of composing tunes with 'advanced' harmony, or playing with extra syncopation, or using wide intervals, or even playing sparse - sometimes it's done because the player wants the audience to think that they are advanced, proficient, smart, hip, whatever, and sometimes it's done because the player actually hears music a certain way and is simply trying to present their vision. "Ego can convert anything to its own use" - Chogyam Trungpa

Let me be clear: I'm not trying to criticize fast players. I didn't really make this clear in my previous post, but I don't like players who are flashy and quick as a substitute for good technique or creativity. I know some people who think if they have space in their playing or if they don't show up the previous soloist, everyone will think they can't play well. The opposite can be the case though, too. Some people underplay and don't develop because they think playing fast is a sign of too much ego. I know both types.

Ideally any technique or style of play should be the result of musical expression, not because of lack or excess of talent.

[JonnyPac]

I totally agree with the opening rant and most of your subsequent replies, Jake. Well said!

I know it sort of contradicts the Galper quote I posted here recently- but I know that Hal is very serious about the art of music and didn't intend to make sucking ok- quite the opposite. His work deals with the inner vision heavily and goes to great lengths to see that it is brought to reality through the trained ear, mind, and body.

Here it is for those who missed it:

[Jazzpunk]

I think musicians should focus on whatever inspires them to create the music they hear in their head. If developing speed and technique helps to facilitate your end goal than go for it. If it does not than focus on areas that interest you more.

[NSJ]

What I have learned is that technique/practice must be, above all, the following things:

1. Performed with intensity, purpose and mindful direction--otherwise, you are internalizing mistakes.
2. Performed with no tension, with absolute relaxation.
3. Must be performed so that the BIG tasks are always broken up into their smallest possible, discrete elements. Each element must be mastered discretely, and all the mastered elements are integrated into the unitary whole.


Really, the idea of technique/practice for me is the process of INTERNALIZATION--the process of making something second nature, so that it becomes like a second skin.

EDIT: In contrast to the above referenced quote, we have Laurie Anderson, who once said that she "couldn't be bothered with practice", because practice stunts her, ahem, "creativity".

Really one of the most asinine things I have ever heard an alleged "musician" say. Ever.

[bako]

This is a viewpoint from cellist William Pleeth.

The spirit of the music is the only thing that can rightfully dictate physical action on the cello.
'Technique in its fullest sense, means discovering the physical means for bringing into existence a piece of music.
Thus it follows that technique per se cannot exist apart from the music it is meant to serve.
People who think in terms of 'studying technique' have made a very small world of technique.
You cannot learn technique, you can only learn the basics of technique- real technique is something which
only begins to take off when it is caught up in a creative musical idea.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen it said in this forum that Monk lacked technique.
I would say his technique was near perfect for expressing
a highly individual creative vision and the world of music is a richer place as a result.

Improvisation in jazz is funny business with emphasis on developing an individual voice
and the ability to interact and respond to other musicians. Also as working musicians,
we are at times called upon to cover the vibe and esthetic of another musicians work.
These forces balance out differently for each of us.

Another point on the issue of speed: Speed can also be used to ornament a very simple melody and still maintain a relaxed feeling.

[Kman]

I have enough technique. My brain and ears are the problem. They need to catch up.

[JakeAcci]

Ahh, great posts everybody. Like I said, I'm really trying to minimize my posting time so hopefully later I can contribute more, but, bullet points, I guess:

re, the Hal Galper quotation: technique might be obvious to a listener who is more concerned with technique. it's very subjective. "players who have opted for a flashy presentation" is also subejctive - it might appear flashy to some, but it may or may not be the player's intention to be flashy. Maybe the player just hears things fast, and the intentions aren't as insidious or ego-driven as one might initially think.

Echoing my previous comments, one can self-evaluate, as I have, and find the excitement in certain sounds (uptempo 8th lines, heavy syncopation) to be worth pursuing. For me, it's about having fun and playing something that sounds good. It is about music (music that happens to be difficult to play) it's not technique taking place of music just because the music happens to be physically and or mentally challenging.

I really think "those players who have opted for a flashy presentation have not thought very deeply about their artistic processes" is close minded, looking at a very small perspective of what an artistic process can be. Yes, I get that Hal is the master and I'm the student, but I feel I still have the right to disagree with him on this point.

If the opposite of flashy is subtle, it creates this hierarchy where one is more honest than the other. Which is quite silly, I think. Trying to have a a subtle or 'non-flashy' presentation to seek respect from others is the same basic egotism as trying to have a flashy presentation to seek respect from others.

Jazzpunk - my sentiment, basically, exactly

NSJ, 1 2 3, yes. It's not just speed, it's effortlessness and efficiency. It's important to practice hammer ons and pull offs until they are mastered and integrated into the unitary whole

As for Laurie Anderson, I actually agree with the idea that practice CAN stunt creativity depending on your medium and vision. Also, I think people who say things like that might have a narrow definition of 'practice,' thinking that it just means playing scales up and down. I know a lot of musical artists that have a creative vision that really wouldn't be aided by any conventional form of practice. For example, somebody might play guitar, but things like technical clarity, harmonic vocabulary, rhythmic accuracy, etc, might be completely irrelevant to their creative vision. That might make most jazz musicians cringe, I'm more of a 'live and let live' person when it comes to creative goals.

Tom Waits has said that whenever he gets too 'good' at an instrument he puts it down and tries to learn another one. Controversial I know, but he seems to be doing well for himself...

Bako - Great quotation and points, thank you. Technique has to apply to something. For what it's worth, I hardly ever practice scales or arpeggios - if I'm doing 'technical' work it's always within lines or musical concepts hopefully relevant to my improvisation. Also I'm always working on having safe and efficient hand positioning as I'm still recovering from a nerve impingement caused in part by bad technique and playing posture.

Thanks guys! Good discussion.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Tom Waits has said that whenever he gets too 'good' at an instrument he puts it down and tries to learn another one. Controversial I know, but he seems to be doing well for himself...

As a big Tom Waits fan, this makes a lot of sense to me. That said, Tom does tend to make music that doesn't particularly require a massive reserve of technique.

And, if I was just interested in making music, more than anything else, like he seems to be, I'd probably try to learn as many instruments as I could, too.

[AlsoRan]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Thanks guys! Good discussion.

Good discussion. I always find threads like these engrossing because I don't get to talk about subjects such as these very often with people in person.


Happy Holidays!

[mattymel]

"technique is the measure of sincerity"...ezra pound?

the thing is...there can be many shapes of technique. technique in songwriting is one that a lot of jazzers around here seem to put down.

[Stevebol]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

"A would-be artist may have the most profound visions, feelings, and insights, but without skill there is no art. The requisite variety that opens up our expressive possibilities comes from practice, play, exercise, exploration, experiment. The effects of nonpractice (or of insufficiently risky practice) are rigidity of heart and body, and an ever-shrinking compass of available variety."

Stephen Nachmanovitch, from Free Play

Technique is tricky. Guitarists tend to focus on playing fast, or tend be impressed by fast playing, but then this causes a backlash of anti-fast sentiment or even anti-technique. I've been in both frames of mind before, being initially obsessed with speed when I was very young, then later looking down on anything involving speed or flash, and now I have a different perspective on the issue.

We need a minimum of technique to play and express ourselves. How much technique depends on the vision. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Also technique isn't just about playing fast, it's accuracy and clarity, especially the ability to be rhythmically precise.

Sorry for the rant, I might have more thoughts later but I've been trying to put all my time into practicing and less into posting lately!

My violin teacher who had many years of experience said something very interesting one time. He said, "I have two kinds of students; ones that have trouble playing slowly and ones that have trouble playing fast. You have trouble playing slowly." I was very surprised I was in the latter group. He was right and if you know how you are wired, musically speaking, if makes things much easier. I suspect that many younger players just need to relax and try to enjoy playing more slowly and with good tone.

[Pat Clare]

Harry Leahey: "Technique is a means to an end"
Karl Berger: "The music occurs in the space between the notes"