Maintaining more than one style with passion

[christianm77]

As I say, I know nothing about flamenco as a musician.

But the guitar is not the focus point for me whenever I’ve seen it live... but the sound of the instrument is very specific to most people’s understanding of that music. I just don’t feel I can do it justice as a player even as pastiche.

There are other guitar things I am more plugged into.

[Hugo Gainly]

I feel particular culture behind it which is hard to obtain from outside...

Olé!

[Hugo Gainly]

That''s fine, we all have different routes to nirvana but

so much of the language of that music is built around the guitar technique

is an assertion that required correction. No offence meant either.

[christianm77]

For me it is more about authenticity... vibe of style... or real style?

Styles like flamenco are interesting with its almost primeval rawness... mix of subtlety and almost savage simplicity... I feel particular culture behind it which is hard to obtain from outside...

Of course last 50 years brought lots of 'neo' everything into the world music.

Many people who love Piazzola are surprised to hear real tango...

Most 'neo' film style has conventional pop vibe that makes it 'international' but less authentic


European classical tradition has great advantage. It is music that is complex in contents, complexity and written tradition give more access to it via scholarship.
In a word it is extremely cultivated.

it’s easy to get sucked into authenticity. Authenticity is a problematic concept of course. Often outsiders police a music for authenticity more than those who grew up in the culture.

(im thinking of Irish music which is eclectic, adopting instruments like the guitar, banjo and bazouki and dance forms like the polka as well as jazz harmony and rhythmic concepts, without ever losing its identity.)

So music is flux. i cannot be bothered with the authenticity police, although think it’s cool people go and live in Brazil and study Samba for years, or whatever. I’ve never down anything like that, too conservative in my life decisions...

what I feel is more important is to have a basis from which to strike out from into the wider world. In the old days this would have been a given depending on where you grew up. Now - we often choose.

Jazz is what I have gravitated to and I am quite keen in developing as complete an understanding of it as a historical art form as I can. I understand this does not interest a lot of people and that’s fine. I also have some Classical background too...

and from a foundation you can cross over with other musicians and be an eclectic without having an absence of substance (hopefully) picking up ideas from other cultures and traditions as you go.

[christianm77]

That''s fine, we all have different routes to nirvana but is an assertion that required correction. No offence meant either.

i see what you mean. To be honest, I don’t know what I’m taking about.

perhaps ‘texture’ might have been a better word.

what I mean is - if I come in with my style of playing (plectrum jazz guitar) it won’t feel like flamenco to the lay listener and needless to say it won’t to the knowledgable listener either.

(This is not so true of styles which do not feature the guitar at all, where I can reference or adapt into my own approach, or where the style isn’t too different or well known to make it work.)

Perhaps one could meaningfully incorporate some deeper aspects of flamenco into jazz (with plectrum jazz guitar.) That might be more interesting.

For some people this approach might be offensive or disrespectful, but rather in the way a Blue Note Bossa is not remotely the same as the Brazilian feel, I feel mutation through the lens of different culture is as valid as getting it right, it allows music to develop and evolve.

Jazz has always done this. But it does exist in other styles as well.

You can only be true to yourself. This might mean going down a decades long quest to explore another tradition, or it might not.

[Jonah]

it’s easy to get sucked into authenticity. Authenticity is a problematic concept of course. Often outsiders police a music for authenticity more than those who grew up in the culture.

(im thinking of Irish music which is eclectic, adopting instruments like the guitar, banjo and bazouki and dance forms like the polka as well as jazz harmony and rhythmic concepts, without ever losing its identity.)

So music is flux. i cannot be bothered with the authenticity police, although think it’s cool people go and live in Brazil and study Samba for years, or whatever. I’ve never down anything like that, too conservative in my life decisions...

what I feel is more important is to have a basis from which to strike out from into the wider world. In the old days this would have been a given depending on where you grew up. Now - we often choose.

Jazz is what I have gravitated to and I am quite keen in developing as complete an understanding of it as a historical art form as I can. I understand this does not interest a lot of people and that’s fine. I also have some Classical background too...

and from a foundation you can cross over with other musicians and be an eclectic without having an absence of substance (hopefully) picking up ideas from other cultures and traditions as you go.

I wrote a long post and it was deleted ..

In a word: it is nothing about rules or police.. it is more about feeling that that thing is original and this thing is imitation that pretends to be original....
it is not analytical - you just feel it...

And also it is not about ecclectis... playing flamenco and play some flamenco-influenced music are different things.. .and again no statements needed there - you just hear it...

I can never play real blues or bluegrass but I can study the style and use the elements in my music... but I would not call it eclectic.

Eclectism is the aesthetics that deliberately uses different styles in my opinion, it even stresses the contrasts between them (it is very post modernistic approach).


For example Julian Lage is much influenced by different styles of American music but he is not eclectic at all.

To be honest when you play I do not feel it is ecclectic... I like how you dive into styles with dedication and true interest and invetigate it but when you play I do not feel that you imitate the style or pretend to be 'Django' or whatever... even when you say that you try to do some things accurately according to the at style.

It is something on the level of perception... people can elaborate orginal conception and sound fake imitators, others can use old idioms openly and sound absolutely orginal

[John A.]

I love jazz and still want to develop my playing, certainly in improvisation, but I also am passionate about old school Flamenco. In both cases I am not interested particularly in solo guitar, more the group interaction (or jaleo :-) ).

I find I am not capable unless I schedule things, to cope with my essentially all or nothing approach to either. This too often means that I don't do one at all while I am studying the other. This can actually lose a year.

I am by the way, not talking of different styles within jazz, more completely different genres requiring different skill sets. I love the fact that with jazz I learn predominantly plectrum techniques and with flamenco, finger style. One is intellectual to some degree, the other passionate and controlled. The situation is further complicated when I start on a computer based composition project - then all playing is off.

I don't play for a living at all now, but I don't like stasis or losing skill. I look to improve.

One of the answers I am expecting is that you have to commit wholly and exclusively to a style to get anywhere in it. But my destination is not a big gig, it is expression of the music I want to produce as a player. But do we have to prioritise?

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

As a little kid I was fascinated by Flamenco, and actually started guitar with hoping to learn it, but never found anyone who could teach it. I briefly had a teacher who showed me a couple of things, but he disappeared, and I was back to "Stewball Was a Racehourse" and "Packington's Pound". Gave up for several years, until I was bitten by the blues. Now I listen to Flamenco and I can't imagine getting anywhere with it, but that's not really what you're asking ...

Anyway, I play jazz, I play electric blues, a hodgepodge of different acoustic blues styles, and songs that are just songs. I have passion for all, but I'd say the only one of those I actually play legitimately well with my own style/voice is electric blues. I'm not terrible at jazz, can function on a bandstand, and love playing (with a passion). Hopefully life will be long enough to allow me to get further with it. I think there's enough similarity of technique and harmony between the two that they complement each other. I don't think I have to give up one to really get good at the other.

When I say acoustic blues, I'm thinking of the real masters of the more complex styles, like Blind Blake, Mississippi John Hurt, Robert Johnson, Reverend Gary Davis, Brownie McGhee, etc, not guys doing basic shuffles and pentatonic licks in E. I can play a song or two from each passably (to some ears), but I think to get to the point of playing that way (and singing, you can't just play the blues) genuinely, fluently well requires shutting out other stuff for an extended period (maybe years). I decided a long time ago that I would have to be satisfied with being a diletante, because I didn't want to do only that. I guess I'd sum up my view by saying that it's possible to have a passion for eclecticism, and for crafting one's own music out of bits and pieces of many musics.

To the authenticity question, I think for the kinds of music I play, authenticity means presenting an honest version of yourself through the music. I think trying to mimic someone from a different background or ethnicity risks falling into caricature and stereotype. Especially with blues, the whole schtick of Fedoras and Raybans and mangling "John the Conqueroo" is embarrassing. Other music probably requires one to excuse the stylizations true to a tradition, e.g., with Gypsy Jazz, Opera, Flamenco, etc. there's are agreed upon right ways to do it, and you have to do that or risk excommunication.

John

[christianm77]

I wrote a long post and it was deleted ..

In a word: it is nothing about rules or police.. it is more about feeling that that thing is original and this thing is imitation that pretends to be original....
it is not analytical - you just feel it...

And also it is not about ecclectis... playing flamenco and play some flamenco-influenced music are different things.. .and again no statements needed there - you just hear it...

I can never play real blues or bluegrass but I can study the style and use the elements in my music... but I would not call it eclectic.

Eclectism is the aesthetics that deliberately uses different styles in my opinion, it even stresses the contrasts between them (it is very post modernistic approach).


For example Julian Lage is much influenced by different styles of American music but he is not eclectic at all.

To be honest when you play I do not feel it is ecclectic... I like how you dive into styles with dedication and true interest and invetigate it but when you play I do not feel that you imitate the style or pretend to be 'Django' or whatever... even when you say that you try to do some things accurately according to the at style.

It is something on the level of perception... people can elaborate orginal conception and sound fake imitators, others can use old idioms openly and sound absolutely orginal

Well thanks you very much, I’ll take that to the bank! :-)

[John A.]

I wrote a long post and it was deleted ..

In a word: it is nothing about rules or police.. it is more about feeling that that thing is original and this thing is imitation that pretends to be original....
it is not analytical - you just feel it...

And also it is not about ecclectis... playing flamenco and play some flamenco-influenced music are different things.. .and again no statements needed there - you just hear it...

I can never play real blues or bluegrass but I can study the style and use the elements in my music... but I would not call it eclectic.

Eclectism is the aesthetics that deliberately uses different styles in my opinion, it even stresses the contrasts between them (it is very post modernistic approach).


For example Julian Lage is much influenced by different styles of American music but he is not eclectic at all.

To be honest when you play I do not feel it is ecclectic... I like how you dive into styles with dedication and true interest and invetigate it but when you play I do not feel that you imitate the style or pretend to be 'Django' or whatever... even when you say that you try to do some things accurately according to the at style.

It is something on the level of perception... people can elaborate orginal conception and sound fake imitators, others can use old idioms openly and sound absolutely orginal

But in English, eclectic simply means "drawing from various sources". Lage's music clearly meets that definition. He has training in and plays in multiple styles, and creates original music that draws from those different backgrounds. Another sense of "eclectic" in English is "using the best elements of multiple methods or theories and not adhering rigidly to only one," which is closest to the classical philosophical meaning. But I have not seen the term restricted to the sense you're using it of deliberately combining explicitly contrasting styles in a single work.

John

[Thumpalumpacus]

As I say, I know nothing about flamenco as a musician.

But the guitar is not the focus point for me whenever I’ve seen it live... but the sound of the instrument is very specific to most people’s understanding of that music. I just don’t feel I can do it justice as a player even as pastiche.

There are other guitar things I am more plugged into.

I lived in Andalucia for a year. When you see flamenco in a club there, the baile takes it to entirely another level, adding not just rhythm and groove,but a visceral energy.

As much as I love flamenco, I agree that its difficulty is such that rather than attempt becoming competent in it, I was satisfied listening to a lot of it and incorporating its influence in my playing, which is not at all flamenco. It shows up most obviously when I play fingerstyle acoustic, which I do more percussively than most American acoustic guitarists. It also shows up when I play heavy rock, in the sense that I took the time to learn Phrygian alt dom, and Hungarian scales as well, and then apply them to the hard rock/metal I was playing at the time.

I also grew up for four years in Iran (back in the 70s), and the musical exposure there was phenomenal -- indigenous Persian music as well as its Arabic and Indian forebears were all around, and though I haven't learnt as much from that (didn't play guitar until we returned to America), it too is influential to me without being definitive. So I get what you're saying, to put it shortly.

[Jonah]

But in English, eclectic simply means "drawing from various sources". Lage's music clearly meets that definition. He has training in and plays in multiple styles, and creates original music that draws from those different backgrounds. Another sense of "eclectic" in English is "using the best elements of multiple methods or theories and not adhering rigidly to only one," which is closest to the classical philosophical meaning. But I have not seen the term restricted to the sense you're using it of deliberately combining explicitly contrasting styles in a single work.

John

I think in English and in Russian it is used in approximately the same way in concern of arts.

I do not apply to vocabulary definition (maybe it's wrong from my side but hard to change!) - it is more from my personal experience.... maybe you are right...
for me 'eclectic' has always been a bit negative term... there is another interesting term 'polystilistic' that I first heard in relation to Alfred Schnittkke's music who really deliberately used different styles as a part of artistic language...
'Ecclectic' is probably more general term... maybe you are right.

Julian Lage.. I wrote somewhere that even the guitars he uses have cultural reference for the project... he definitely communicates with history and styles.. but at the same time he is so integral that I cannot call it 'ecclectic'.. maybe it is becasue all the styles involved hav emore or less the same background? And I here it as the reflections of the same essence?
He does not mix Indian music with Baroque... he is within Americana

For example some McLaughlin's projects sound ecclectic to me..

It is often hard to draw the line really: Mahler for example.... today for many people he sounds very integral classical lTE romantic but I hear a lot of 'polstylism' in his music...


Again it is important to distinguish the genre... genres were used as references thought all the hysory.. and often unconciously:
- like fanfare in Beethoven's 5th
- or elements of Polonaise (in 1st part) and Sarabande (in 4th part) in Tchaykovsky's 6th symphony...

They can be re-inforced with other elements - like instrumentation (Mozartian clarinet in Tchaikovsky's polonaise' episiode, or french horn in Sarabande)

[Jonah]

Here is quite famous polystylistic example
Cadenza - Rondo with Postlude from Schnittkke's Concerto grosso #1

Listne to it consequently - it is short...

What is interesting it may sound 'corny' if one takes it directly without hearing stylistic refereces

[Hugo Gainly]

what I mean is - if I come in with my style of playing (plectrum jazz guitar) it won’t feel like flamenco to the lay listener and needless to say it won’t to the knowledgable listener either.

To the lay listener maybe, though if they are to the extreme end of 'lay' they will ask you if you're playing an accordion. On the foro there was a guitarist who had stellar pick chops and played flamenco at least as well as any finger picker. He used pick for the picky bits (picado, arpeggios etc) and combination picking for other stuff, like rasgueo. He was always treated with respect from the real people'. But I think in the end, everyone wanted him to 'adopt the position' - and I think only because they wanted him to 'join in'. I was a bit uncomfortable too but decided I was the one in the wrong. He didn't and apparently went off flamenco and stopped.

When I say acoustic blues, I'm thinking of the real masters of the more complex styles, like Blind Blake, Mississippi John Hurt, Robert Johnson, Reverend Gary Davis, Brownie McGhee, etc

Love that stuff and only recently decided to not develop a blues project on the basis of cultural appropriation. (Another Debate please!) Scheduled was a proper version of Robert Petway's Catfish Blues and Blind Willie Johnson's Trouble Soon Be Over. Sigh. I came to the conclusion myself.

What is interesting it may sound 'corny' if one takes it directly without hearing stylistic refereces

The Rondo clearly adopted stylistic elements of guitar and 'Spanish music' and actually after my initial feelings of pleasure it did become slightly irritating, esp. after the cadenza. But it's amazing how much new thinking comes from, what do we call it, 'modern art music'? An unexplored territory for me, which I must do something about. I do like the fact that composers who write music that sounds like a piano falling down a lift shaft still adopt the classical forms!

I haven't answered to my own satisfaction, having thought about it, whether I love a genre for its social characteristics, and to what extent that colours my appreciation of the music itself. Oddly this doesn't include parlour guitar sessions with added lace and powdered wigs - poverty and suffering seem to figure big in my thinking and I worry that I am unconsciously patronising the history. In regards to appropriate or alien techniques within a genre I think as long as you are communicating the soul of the music and not just the techniques you will be received well.

I agree about the Baile but I love the common culture and not the vain whirling about, dynamic though it is. I hope the site monitors will allow these videos.

and some singing with guitar accompaniment

[christianm77]

To the lay listener maybe, though if they are to the extreme end of 'lay' they will ask you if you're playing an accordion. On the foro there was a guitarist who had stellar pick chops and played flamenco at least as well as any finger picker. He used pick for the picky bits (picado, arpeggios etc) and combination picking for other stuff, like rasgueo. He was always treated with respect from the real people'. But I think in the end, everyone wanted him to 'adopt the position' - and I think only because they wanted him to 'join in'. I was a bit uncomfortable too but decided I was the one in the wrong. He didn't and apparently went off flamenco and stopped.

Yes... that is the authenticity police right there. Not the best musicians who are often much more open minded...

It's very much like this in Gypsy jazz. I try to avoid the politics by not calling myself a GJ player, but a (sometimes) acoustic jazz guitarist. Again musicians from the actual Manouche culture I have been fortunate to play with seem to care less about 'authenticity' than I would expect. They play with the authentic style, technique and feel of course, and people from outside the culture want to emulate that.

I suspect that in music in general, is there is a job of work to be done, and if that job is done well and right, that's the main thing. In swing music, it's the rhythm guitar. I suspect from what you're saying it's analogous for flamenco? Accompanying the dancers and singers. Being able to participate in the community of practice.

[Hugo Gainly]

I suspect that in music in general, is there is a job of work to be done, and if that job is done well and right, that's the main thing. In swing music, it's the rhythm guitar. I suspect from what you're saying it's analogous for flamenco? Accompanying the dancers and singers. Being able to participate in the community of practice.

From my experience and to my knowledge exactly that. You're there to accompany and the finesse with which you do it is what counts. On the foro there are players who prefer solo guitar à la Sabicas. Amazing to listen to, but my heart breaks when I witness things like the Maria Soleá stuff below. The solo preferers also post videos of metal shredding and the DiMeola, de Lucia, John McLaughlin waffle, which implies that other viewpoints can exist.

[John A.]

I think in English and in Russian it is used in approximately the same way in concern of arts.

I do not apply to vocabulary definition (maybe it's wrong from my side but hard to change!) - it is more from my personal experience.... maybe you are right...
for me 'eclectic' has always been a bit negative term... there is another interesting term 'polystilistic' that I first heard in relation to Alfred Schnittkke's music who really deliberately used different styles as a part of artistic language...
'Ecclectic' is probably more general term... maybe you are right.

Julian Lage.. I wrote somewhere that even the guitars he uses have cultural reference for the project... he definitely communicates with history and styles.. but at the same time he is so integral that I cannot call it 'ecclectic'.. maybe it is becasue all the styles involved hav emore or less the same background? And I here it as the reflections of the same essence?
He does not mix Indian music with Baroque... he is within Americana

For example some McLaughlin's projects sound ecclectic to me..

It is often hard to draw the line really: Mahler for example.... today for many people he sounds very integral classical lTE romantic but I hear a lot of 'polstylism' in his music...


Again it is important to distinguish the genre... genres were used as references thought all the hysory.. and often unconciously:
- like fanfare in Beethoven's 5th
- or elements of Polonaise (in 1st part) and Sarabande (in 4th part) in Tchaykovsky's 6th symphony...

They can be re-inforced with other elements - like instrumentation (Mozartian clarinet in Tchaikovsky's polonaise' episiode, or french horn in Sarabande)

"Eclectic" doesn't typically have negative connotations in English, though I suppose people who are purists about a particular style/form/genre view any sort of deviation as negative. Whether you consider someone eclectic does depend on where you draw the boundaries between forms. From 30,000 feet up, guitar+32-bar song forms+ a limited set of rhythmic feels + jazz-trio format can just seem like one thing. But closer up, and in comparison to others who are nominally in the same field, the boundaries between sources are pretty clear, for instance, between the country/folk/"Americana" based aesthetics Lage incorporates (Metheny and Frisell, too), and the black urban tradition that main stream of jazz is built on. I mean compare Lage to Grant Green. I don't think you're gonna be able to find a whole lot of Stephen Foster or Bill Monroe in what Grant Green did, but there's a lot in what Lage does.

John

[Jonah]

"Eclectic" doesn't typically have negative connotations in English, though I suppose people who are purists about a particular style/form/genre view any sort of deviation as negative. Whether you consider someone eclectic does depend on where you draw the boundaries between forms. From 30,000 feet up, guitar+32-bar song forms+ a limited set of rhythmic feels + jazz-trio format can just seem like one thing. But closer up, and in comparison to others who are nominally in the same field, the boundaries between sources are pretty clear, for instance, between the country/folk/"Americana" based aesthetics Lage incorporates (Metheny and Frisell, too), and the black urban tradition that main stream of jazz is built on. I mean compare Lage to Grant Green. I don't think you're gonna be able to find a whole lot of Stephen Foster or Bill Monroe in what Grant Green did, but there's a lot in what Lage does.

John

It is my perception that I was talking about .. in general it is neutral as well as in English.

I think I consider 'eclectic' as negative (I always did - even when I was a teenager) becasue I associate first of all with some kind of 'collage' (or pastiche) - the technique and mentality that has always been against my nature...

'Collage' presumes that we can understand and clearly see that it is made from different fragments, right? It is a part of conception. And I do not like it, I do not like that its secondary and fragmentary essence.

So to me 'ecclectic art', it is a work of art where styles are mixed by they ar eclearly disignated and often opposed and contrasted

and also 'eclectism' is often connected with the period of decline of great style... as I wrote above for me it is mostly about the feeling of 'orginal' and 'imitation'...
'ecclectic' often seems helpless to me in incapability to elaborate its own language..

I thnk influence and absorbation of different styles do not necessarily mean ecclectic.


That is why I probably try to avoid calling Lage or Frisell 'eclectic' - They seem to integral to me to be excclectic)) Their own personalities are so strong in their art that they dominate and integrate those different refernces in styles in one,

As close as Julian get to bluegrass, he does not play bluegrass... he still essentially plays like he does in his jazz works, I mean aesthetically.
It is clearly seen in comparison with Chris Eldridge.

I am not purist at all ... on the contrary I have lots of problems in early music area of my interests exactly becasue of ignoring puristic principles.

Another thing - feel of 'history' -- some work of art has strong historic references, historic time... some do not... but again it does not mean 'ecclectic' to me,

I would say that Frisell and Lage refer to styles it more 'historically' - they refer to the styles consiously - it is a conception to some degree, and Metheny just incorporates these things in more direct way.. (though things like America Garage have some program behind it of course but it is not really historic, it is contemporary


But I understant that it may look and seem different from different perspectives...

[John A.]

It is my perception that I was talking about .. in general it is neutral as well as in English.

I think I consider 'eclectic' as negative (I always did - even when I was a teenager) becasue I associate first of all with some kind of 'collage' (or pastiche) - the technique and mentality that has always been against my nature...

'Collage' presumes that we can understand and clearly see that it is made from different fragments, right? It is a part of conception. And I do not like it, I do not like that its secondary and fragmentary essence.

So to me 'ecclectic art', it is a work of art where styles are mixed by they ar eclearly disignated and often opposed and contrasted

and also 'eclectism' is often connected with the period of decline of great style... as I wrote above for me it is mostly about the feeling of 'orginal' and 'imitation'...
'ecclectic' often seems helpless to me in incapability to elaborate its own language..

I thnk influence and absorbation of different styles do not necessarily mean ecclectic.


That is why I probably try to avoid calling Lage or Frisell 'eclectic' - They seem to integral to me to be excclectic)) Their own personalities are so strong in their art that they dominate and integrate those different refernces in styles in one,

As close as Julian get to bluegrass, he does not play bluegrass... he still essentially plays like he does in his jazz works, I mean aesthetically.
It is clearly seen in comparison with Chris Eldridge.

I am not purist at all ... on the contrary I have lots of problems in early music area of my interests exactly becasue of ignoring puristic principles.

Another thing - feel of 'history' -- some work of art has strong historic references, historic time... some do not... but again it does not mean 'ecclectic' to me,

I would say that Frisell and Lage refer to styles it more 'historically' - they refer to the styles consiously - it is a conception to some degree, and Metheny just incorporates these things in more direct way.. (though things like America Garage have some program behind it of course but it is not really historic, it is contemporary


But I understant that it may look and seem different from different perspectives...

This reinforces my sense that you use the word "eclectic" in a personal way that is not especially common. I don't think many people view it as meaning that a work of art must consist of distinctly identifiable bits from multiple sources in order to qualify as eclectic. A person who draws from multiple sources and brings them into his/her work in such a way that listeners sense those influences is eclectic. Anyway, I hear multiple influences in Lage's music, and I like that.
John

[Jonah]

This reinforces my sense that you use the word "eclectic" in a personal way that is not especially common. I don't think many people view it as meaning that a work of art must consist of distinctly identifiable bits from multiple sources in order to qualify as eclectic. A person who draws from multiple sources and brings them into his/her work in such a way that listeners sense those influences is eclectic. Anyway, I hear multiple influences in Lage's music, and I like that.
John

I wonder who is not eclectic then? )

[citizenk74]

I wonder who is not eclectic then? )

I like to think of my approach as syncretic.

If "syncretic" means "swiping everything I can get my fingers around.

[John A.]

I wonder who is not eclectic then? )

Well ... in modern American music styles, maybe nobody, given that nearly all of it is hybrids of different things. But lots of people are into only a few fairly narrowly constrained things. Also, I've noticed (though this could just be my experience), that musicians in Europe tend to be more specialized than American musicians. Like, in Europe someone who is a jazz musician is less likely to have played rock/r&b/blues/country, and more likely to have gone to a specialized jazz school from a relatively early age. Whereas a jazz musician from the US is more likely to have played in different kinds of bands and less likely to have started specializing at a young age. So "eclectic" seems more baked into overall musical culture. Again, at least in my experience and observation.

John

[christianm77]

Well ... in modern American music styles, maybe nobody, given that nearly all of it is hybrids of different things. But lots of people are into only a few fairly narrowly constrained things. Also, I've noticed (though this could just be my experience), that musicians in Europe tend to be more specialized than American musicians. Like, in Europe someone who is a jazz musician is less likely to have played rock/r&b/blues/country, and more likely to have gone to a specialized jazz school from a relatively early age. Whereas a jazz musician from the US is more likely to have played in different kinds of bands and less likely to have started specializing at a young age. So "eclectic" seems more baked into overall musical culture. Again, at least in my experience and observation.

John

yeah I wonder? I feel like I’ve played every style, mostly badly though lol. But yeah, always struck with how many US musicians are able to play a bit of jazz for instance.

[John A.]

yeah I wonder? I feel like I’ve played every style, mostly badly though lol. But yeah, always struck with how many US musicians are able to play a bit of jazz for instance.

Jack of all trades master of none. I wrote an eclectic Americana-inspired song called that once.

John

[Hep To The Jive]

I met more than a few guitarists on GJ scene who proudly told me they don't play or interested in anything other than Django and GJ. I hear some challenge in the voice when they proclaim it, like anyone who does otherwise is a bit inferior. Good guys, very dedicated players, aspiring to be good in one particular style, but I can't be like that.

Equal passion for me in hard rock, ska, surf, pop, or anything im into on any particular day. I believe, yes, you can be great in any of these style as a player, but maybe better at one than the other a little bit. Life will decide.

But no, not flamenco, not for me lol. Only cliches, so I can awe the lay listeners for a sec, nothing deep. I'm ok with that though, no ambitions there.

[Jonah]

I should say that lots of people do not know real flamenco... Paco is great person and musician and he could play flamenco of course but most of what popularly known is some kind of mix of flamenco and pop/jazz/latin idioms.
Even the posture that is associated with flamenco (leg on leg) is not common and was introduced by Paco, and he was heavily criticized for it by 'old school masters'...
I admire Paco, his personality is his style... he is a great musician. But beyond him I do not like ne0-flamenco.
Old-school flamenco has some 'passion of earth'

Same thing about tango - Piazzola's neo tango style with its jazzy sweet harmonies and classical ambitions is very popular...
But authentic tango is much more raw and - to be honest - much more impressive for me...

The same about blues by the way...

To me any folk style is great with its straighforwardness - with its authencity inm the highest sense...
No-one can play Freight Train as Elizabeth Cotton...

again we seem to come to teh point of original and imitation... natural expression and pretensions...

Conceptions are ok but it requires complex and elaborated language like in classical or in modern jazz... otherwise it turns into pretensions