Character over practice?

[Tate Ferguson]

I've seen it suggested more than once that for a musician to progress quickest, it's more important to be a well-rounded person, than to narrowly focus on technique improvement.

There is a lot of leeway for discussion here - certainly several virtuosi come to mind who were far from paragons.

Not that I wish to escape practicing scales and arpeggios - but does one's music improve more rapidly if one strives to improve one's character first and foremost?

Thanks for any replies to this vague philosophical question.

[MediumMando5722]

I'll bite.

Music is an emotional expression of one's experiences. Therefore, the more interesting the experiences (person), the more potential for interesting music.

[John Rosett]

I think that you have to do both.You need to be well-rounded, and have "character" in order to have something to say, but you need to have technique in order to express yourself.

[Bertram Henze]

You have to practise in order to live with your music.
You have to have character in order to live with yourself, and that takes practising as well.
You need both for your soul to survive.

[JonZ]

No. You get there through deliberate practice.

[Louise NM]

I think this question is much more pertinent to child prodigies than adults. I assume, T-E-F, that ship sailed long ago, and you have a driver's license, a credit card, and a lawnmower? Plenty of life experience?

With child prodigies, the ones that were allowed to be kids (violinist Joshua Bell comes to mind) seem to be much happier, healthier adults, and far less likely to spin out along the way (see Michael Rabin, another violinist, or a whole passel of child actors).

Building character and building musical techniques are both lifelong pursuits, and no one is ever finished with either. Just when you think you have it down and can coast for awhile, along comes a new challenge, thanks to a family member or a songwriter. As others have said, the more you have in yourself—joy, heartache, miles traveled—the more you can bring to your music. A weekend getaway at the Grand Canyon won't do the same thing for your playing a weekend woodshedding will, though. Don't sacrifice your life for music, and don't sacrifice your music for the mundane parts of life.

[usqebach]

Interesting concept. Not buying in completely, but there may be a little something in it.

To me, Bruce Molsky described it best "music is like language, and your playing is your voice." If you spend your life in a bubble, mindlessly practicing scales, licks, riffs, etc, then you are essentially parroting other people's voices. You have to have some exposure to outside experiences to come up with your own unique voice. However, Alasdair Fraser on the musical voice: "Each style of music has it's own bowing, phrasing, ornamentation, etc, and it's important to learn it and incorporate it before interpreting it." (on approaching a style or discipline casually;) "Don't be an uninformed voice!"

I realize that isn't exactly (or perhaps even closely!) to your point, but I at least want to add credence to the necessity of practice and rigor before thinking that "life character" makes good music.

[LadysSolo]

I think that it takes both - practicing music builds character (patience, perseverance, etc,) and life experience gives expression to your music.
But you have to have the notes in order to give expression to them, so I think discipline may be the more important (note I didn't say the most important.)

[Jeff Mando]

No. You get there through deliberate practice.

Agreed. I can't think of any pro basketball players who didn't spend their youth shooting baskets. It is all about technique. Character, style, life experience will all come later with time.....

FWIW, I had been playing guitar for 20 years, played in bands, etc., then moved to a different city, didn't know anyone, had a lot of time on my hands so I started practicing 8-10 hours a day for a little over a year. Well, in that year I became 10 times the musician I had been a year earlier -- all do to practice and the desire to be a better musician.

[mandomurph]

It seems to me that creativity is limited by the ability to express it.

[Bob A]

Character can be shaped, if not defined, by that which one forgoes in order to pursue one's desired goals.

So if you give up on the bulk of normal social activities in order to improve your skills as a musician, that effectively prevents you from becoming "well-rounded", so to speak. But it may elevate you into a level of musicianship that exceeds what most people can attain.

On the other hand, if you live life on the edge, pushing the envelope of what is possible while still surviving, that might come out in your music, but, I think, only if you already have the internal capacity to make great music.

I can easily come up with examples of both extremes, but the second usually only applies to those whose performing venue is in the "popular" sphere.

[StuartE]

Agreed. I can't think of any pro basketball players who didn't spend their youth shooting baskets. It is all about technique. Character, style, life experience will all come later with time.....



Joel Embiid of KU and, now, the Philadelphia 76ers, didn't start playing basketball until he was 15.

There are some other late starters. Similarly, there are some musicians who got a late start.

[JeffD]

I've seen it suggested more than once that for a musician to progress quickest, it's more important to be a well-rounded person, than to narrowly focus on technique improvement..

It depends what you mean my progress. I think that is the biggest issue - an ill defined idea of what one wants to be as a musician.

I wrote about that here. (https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/entry.php?802-Goals-and-Aspirations-and-Focusing-my-Perspiration)

If by well rounded you mean the stuff you need to know besides arpeggios, here is my thinking (https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/entry.php?957-Everything-I-Know-Might-Be-Wrong!).

I don't know if I like the dichotomy you are implying. I think it is important to be a well-rounded person, AND I think it is important to practice a lot, AND I think one of the many things that need to be focused on in practice is technique.

I think you really have to do it all. Which of course is impossible. That is where having a clear goals, that can be written down in a few crisp sentences, is important.

Of course if one is a genius and/or has that level of extreme talent - none of this discussion is pertinent. Such a person needs only to follow the talent where it goes.

[Bertram Henze]

So if you give up on the bulk of normal social activities in order to improve your skills as a musician, that effectively prevents you from becoming "well-rounded", so to speak. But it may elevate you into a level of musicianship that exceeds what most people can attain.

If you fascinate people with your technical excellence they'll give you a lot of leeway for being a sociopath. They will applaude your antics on stage being glad that you're on stage and they're not. They will applaude your last journey to the grave being glad they have recordings of your music without the need of meeting you personally any more. :cool:
It's a bit like what W.B Yeats had written on his epitaph - Cast a cold eye on life, on death. Horseman, pass by!

I'd far rather live without the need to be given leeway for anything, neither poor technique nor poor personality. I prefer giving over taking.

[JeffD]

I'll bite.

Music is an emotional expression of one's experiences. Therefore, the more interesting the experiences (person), the more potential for interesting music.

The last thing I want to express when I play music, is my emotions or my experiences. I want to play expressively, absolutely. I want to connect with the audience, but not with me... connect the audience with the music.

I want to better express what is in the music.

A song about going to high school, and then going to college, and then not buying that motor cycle, and ... I mean in reality nobody is interested in my experiences or my emotions. The song, the tune, that is what folks want.

Of course it is important, in expressive playing as in everything else, to connect with and understand one's emotions, sadness, euphoria, fear. But it is in service of expressing what is in the tune.

[Jill McAuley]

I'm not sure how "character" would translate into great technique though? My experience as a lifelong musician is that the whole reason I'm still here playing is because I practiced so much as a kid, which helped establish music as a very integral and ingrained part of my daily life. The more I practiced, the better I got, which was very reinforcing - according to Thorndike's Law of Effect "behavior that is reinforced goes up in frequency". Mastering technique is what allows playing to be effortless. Character may be the quality that helps you persist through the rough spots though, when you're struggling to get to grips with the instrument and sound kind of crummy! So to my thinking it's not a one vs. the other scenario.

[Dagger Gordon]

My experience as a lifelong musician is that the whole reason I'm still here playing is because I practiced so much as a kid, which helped establish music as a very integral and ingrained part of my daily life.

I couldn't agree more. My experience entirely.

Following on from the last bit, I see a lot of kids who play a lot when they are at school and get really pretty good. The trouble is, often when they leave school they no longer have a regular structure (ie a weekly practise session) and eventually get out of the habit of playing.

I would still play every day even if no-one ever heard me. It is, as Jill very eloquently puts it, 'a very integral and ingrained part of my daily life'. It is, in fact, part of me and a fundamental part of my character, and I still practise because I definitely want to maintain that ability.

[Rick Purcell]

Good technique will never get in your way.

[Explorer]

I've seen it suggested more than once that for a musician to progress quickest, it's more important to be a well-rounded person, than to narrowly focus on technique improvement.

Not that I wish to escape practicing scales and arpeggios - but does one's music improve more rapidly if one strives to improve one's character first and foremost?
You get better at what you practice effectively.

Addressing that "scales and arpeggios" idea...

When you learned to write, at first you learned to recognize your letters, then to form those letters with a crayon or jumbo pencil, then to combine those letters to make simple words, then to read words faster. Eventually you likely got to where you read each word at a glance, instantly apprehending it in a moment without having to break it down to its constituent letters.

Then you slowly learned the parts of speech and punctuation, including paragraphs. Perhaps you learned sentence diagramming, as a tool to deeply ingrain the way sentences fit together, so you could effectively put together understandable sentences on the fly.

Of those who learn to read and write, some feel compelled to create books and stories. Of those, some work in a limited palette as a stylistic choice, while others are limited to such a palette because they don't have anything else. Additionally, some have interesting (to others) things to say, while others don't.

So, if someone lacks the inclination in their character to create, lacks the technique to create effectively, or the experiences to add perspective and color, their creations will suffer, or will never exist at all. The "well rounded character" will feed the works of the creator, but without a creator who already has a compelling way to express things, all the experiences in the world won't help.

If someone just wants to repeat back another person's creations, of course, then all one needs is the technique.

----

With all that said, scales and arpeggios are like practicing writing certain words over and over.

Going further, most people don't ever really learn each note cold like they would a single letter. They can find the note, but it's not an instant thing.

There's an audio course which teaches what each pitch sounds like, with other courses teaching instantly recognizing intervals. There are computer programs which work the same area, and one of the tools those often have allows one to choose a subset of notes and range, and to work those like a set of flash cards. So, you might choose to have it flash C4 (middle C) and C5, and practice until you instantly know that fifth fret on the G string is notated as C4 and third fret on the A string is notated as C5.

Then, once you can immediate play the equivalent of the letter A, both capital and lower-case A, you add D4 and D5, the equivalent of capital and lower-case B. You work the D notes alone, then add the C notes.

Along the way, you might sight read the various tetrachords as you learn enough notes, starting possibly with the C major scale and its various modes. You work those notes in combinations just like a kid learning to read and write common combinations like "cat" and "dog."

If you add the tool that lets you hear a pitch and then play it, you'll also learn to skip the translation step most people require in music.

Eventually, you will absolutely learn every note's position in first position, to where you can unhesitatingly sight read the first six frets and the open strings. That's only 28 notes, and you *know* them *cold*, just like you know the 26 letters in their 52 forms (upper and lower case). You can even play all the scales and modes, and easily recognize and play notes and phrases that you hear from others.

----

Most people rely on muscle memory to learn the musical equivalent of writing a specific word (the scales and arpeggios), but never work on using the exact word they would choose, if they had only known it.

Incidentally, and with no personal financial interest, one computer program which allows/allowed this kind of work is EarMaster, and one can often find the various David Lucas Burge audio courses (perfect pitch, relative pitch, interval training) not just at PerfectPitch.com, but used on eBay. I picked the three audio courses up on CD for less than $60 total, including the books, years ago.

----

Now, a question which has occurred to me over the years is, how many people really want to work what I just outlined? That's something each person must answer individually, but it gets to the person's actual character. Are they a creator? Do they want to perfectly play another person's music? Do they just want to pick common tunes? Each person must choose to reach for a higher goal in order to progress beyond their current skill level.

Just some thoughts!

[FLATROCK HILL]

A song about going to high school, and then going to college, and then not buying that motor cycle, and ... I mean in reality nobody is interested in my experiences or my emotions.

They might have been interested though, if you had bought that motorcycle. You know... that Vincent Black Lightning you had your eye on.

[catmandu2]

The last thing I want to express when I play music, is my emotions or my experiences ... I mean in reality nobody is interested in my experiences or my emotions. The song, the tune, that is what folks want.



This is really getting to the heart of one issue. For this is, after all, what effective art is - the conveying of meaningful content. If the player/performer doesn't feel their music contains meaning/relevance/emotion, no doubt it will lack for the listener as well; before a listener will perceive something meaningful from a player, a player must first imbue meaning.

What is music, if not emotion?

[JeffD]

This is really getting to the heart of one issue. For this is, after all, what effective art is - the conveying of meaningful content. What is music, if not emotion? If the player/performer doesn't feel their music contains meaning/relevance/emotion, no doubt it will lack for the listener as well; before a listener will perceive something meaningful from a player, a player must first imbue meaning.

It is the emotion, relevance, and meaning, of the piece of music that must be conveyed. The composer of the piece puts the meaning into it. If I am not playing original music, then what I feel or want to feel or want the audience to feel is not relevant.

[catmandu2]

...If I am not playing original music, then what I feel or want to feel or want the audience to feel is not relevant.

This seems to me way off the mark. Can not the playing (expression) of ANY music (medium) be original/authentic in some way?

[JeffD]

This seems to me way off the mark. Can not the playing (expression) of ANY music (medium) be original/authentic in some way?

Not necessarily, not in the way that it is authentic to the musician playing the piece. I might understand the emotions and experiences the piece contains, and I might use that understanding to better convey the piece, but at no point am I tying to convey my emotions, or my experiences.

We are actors, and the music is our script. And unless we are composers or playwrights, the emotion of the piece is not (necessarily) ours. If it happens to be ours as well that's interesting, but not very relevant, and doesn't make for a better or worse performance.

[Pepe]

I've seen it suggested more than once that for a musician to progress quickest, it's more important to be a well-rounded person, than to narrowly focus on technique improvement...

The only thing that will make most people better musicians is to love playing music. Doesn't matter how 'round' you are, if you don't love doing what it takes to get better, you won't, IMHO.

[JonZ]

As I said, it comes down to deliberate practice. That means deliberately exploring other people's sounds, and deliberately exploring your own, not just technical drills.

Of course to play the blues, it also helps if your baby done you wrong.

[catmandu2]

...but at no point am I tying to convey my emotions, or my experiences..


Here's where we differ. My experience (of playing music, or hearing music, etc) is completely the converse. (I dont think it's possible to do otherwise)

[JeffD]

Here's where we differ. My experience (of playing music, or hearing music, etc) is completely the converse. (I dont think it's possible to do otherwise)

I think the encouragement that we 'express ourselves' through music primarily refers to writing our own songs and tunes. The encouragement has expanded beyond its original intent.

I am very very thankful that I have not had a life of as many ups and downs as are exhibited in the music I play. That I can play tragic music effectively without having to have experienced a tragedy of that magnitude personally.

[Jim Garber]

Not necessarily, not in the way that it is authentic to the musician playing the piece. I might understand the emotions and experiences the piece contains, and I might use that understanding to better convey the piece, but at no point am I tying to convey my emotions, or my experiences.

We are actors, and the music is our script. And unless we are composers or playwrights, the emotion of the piece is not (necessarily) ours. If it happens to be ours as well that's interesting, but not very relevant, and doesn't make for a better or worse performance.

Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your premise, Jeff, but I can't see how you can compartmentalize a player's life experience with his/her ability to (for lack of a better word) put his/her self into the playing. As an example, listen to 5 or more violinists playing the Bach Chaconne and you will have a very different experience with each. The composer may give the player the framework but the player is the interpreter. I have heard renditions of the Chaconne that had me in tears, others that left me cold, though the player of the latter might be as technically perfect.

The same is true with a dramatic script. There are so many interpretations of Shakespeare or Shaw and much of that depends on the choices the director makes and the voice and phrasing of the actor speaking the words.


I am very very thankful that I have not had a life of as many ups and downs as are exhibited in the music I play. That I can play tragic music effectively without having to have experienced a tragedy of that magnitude personally.
Where are we talking about living the life (tragic or otherwise) of the composer or playwright or novelist? In fact, the big mistake that many people believe is that a fiction writer, for example, is necessarily basing a work on his or her life. Yes, there are some that do that, but many more who are brilliantly sketching out characters that never existed or events that never happened but are conveyed through imagination. The same goes for the feelings that a good player can put into whatever music he or she plays.

[Bill McCall]

.....We are actors, and the music is our script. And unless we are composers or playwrights, the emotion of the piece is not (necessarily) ours. If it happens to be ours as well that's interesting, but not very relevant, and doesn't make for a better or worse performance.

This presumes that the composer only wanted performers to play the score as annotated and I doubt that. That would seem a fairly cheap composition if it only allowed one interpretation.

You can't help but bring your own experience to your playing, how you phrase passages, etc.

1500 singers have recorded 'Unchained Melody", but Bobby Hatfield's experience allows his version to stand 1st (for me) among all the interpretations. What great experience he brought to the tune, especially compared to say, Perry Como, who was no slouch himself.

[catmandu2]

I think the encouragement that we 'express ourselves' through music primarily refers to writing our own songs and tunes. The encouragement has expanded beyond its original intent.

I am very very thankful that I have not had a life of as many ups and downs as are exhibited in the music I play. That I can play tragic music effectively without having to have experienced a tragedy of that magnitude personally.

I think you're reading this all too literally. As Jim states, it's about imagination, symbolism, catharsis, etc. We're all human, for better and worse. THROUGH music, we can find a great many commonality, symbiosis, etc. Music is a medium of transference and kinesis. Music is emotion. The notes are just dots on paper, a conceptual model, requiring a human spirit to bring it to life. In other words, music is nothing without a player interpreting - for better or worse - by the player's imaginative ability.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Lots of well-rounded people can't play note. Some of the most exciting players around are narrow social zeros otherwise.

[Amanda Gregg]

Declaring that a person needs one or the other -- character or practice -- always sounds to me like the search for a break or shortcut. I don't think there are shortcuts. Playing music is about expression, which means having something to express and being able to express it.

[Timbofood]

Just remember:
"Life is pain, anyone who tells you something else, is trying to sell you something." Stable boy Westley as the Dread Pirate Roberts.
And remember, it's still called PLAYING music, even if your baby done you wrong. :grin:

[Tate Ferguson]

A good discussion. Glad that my simple OP could bring out such intelligence and profundity from the MC members.

[kurth83]

I have been a musician forever (it seems like), and as a relatively young musician (around 20ish), I remember when I figured out that I should not be putting my 'feel' into every song, instead I should be playing genre appropriate styles instead.

Until then I was a one-dimensional player, I had technique and could express a musical line like nobody else (on trumpet), but it was always the same style - my style - with my heart and soul poured into it. After that epiphany, I gradually learned a lot of different musical styles (and several other instruments), and somehow my heart and soul is still part of it, but less so, since I submit myself to the demands of a song now, and the style it is in. It made me a lot better musician in retrospect.

I do not really believe that enduring pain makes you a better musician, but it can make you a better human being. There have been a lot of lousy human beings who were great musicians so I see no correlation there at all. I do use music to work through emotional times though, I play sad songs to help my cry (inside :-) ), and happy songs to cheer me up.

To me, the dichotomy is not character vs technical skill, but skill vs musicianship.

There is a saying among musicians, "you cannot play beyond your skill or your musicianship". You need both, technical skill without a feel for the music sounds like a bad robot playing, and lack of technical skills means nothing gets through, even if you can hear angelic choruses in your head, it doesn't help if you can't play them.

To me, practicing technical skills is prep work so you can learn the styles you desire to learn, and how to express yourself within those styles, and the truly great can innovate a style to something new.

After having watched a lot of talented young musicians grow up over the years, I am of the opinion that great technical skills usually precedes great musicianship, meaning technical skills are easier and take less time to acquire.

I also believe that to truly master a style, you have to practice it long enough to where you internalize the style, and make it a part of who you are, and that takes time. And it's a rare musician that is truly a master of more than a few styles, those guys get jobs as session players, you get the idea.

[CarlM]

As my daddy would say "Practice shows character." It takes character to practice.

[Dagger Gordon]

Well I am a fan of pretty modern jazz, in fact fairly wild stuff.

I realise that this might seem to be at odds with the trad Scottish music which I play, but still.
One of my favourite musicians is the late Art Pepper, a saxophonist whose life seemed to be largely a battle with his heroin addiction. There are plenty of other musicians in all fields who have had similar issues with the bottle etc etc. These are not people I would necessarily admire or even like, certainly as far as their characters are concerned, but I can and do respond to their music.

Many of these had phenomenal technique, and probably practised obsessively, but in the end I think it is principally the emotion and certainly feeling that is being expressed in the music which I am responding to.

In a different way, although I am not a religious man I find I can also respond to music from various religions, and again I think I am responding to the feeling and emotion which is expressed.

I am not interested in banal music at any level.

[Bertram Henze]

original/authentic

There is the word. Authentic.
I wondered what "character" is supposed to mean, in the context of this thread, and authenticity is one possible answer. It is not enough to play music with perfect technique - to connect with it the audience must believe that it is "your own music", i.e. what you really feel, not just what you pretend to feel (this is the very reason I could never have been a classical musician, not for all the practising in the world).
But the answer is still the same: it takes both. Perfect delivery and something real to deliver.

[Eric Platt]

I think both are intertwined to an extent. Knew a person who was a good musician, but a better person. Then they decided they had to dedicate their life to getting better as a musician. To the exclusion of all else. The person did become technically more skilled. However, it was not fun to try to play with that person anymore.

Then again, I don't practice enough (on any instrument) and a lot of folks think I'm a jerk, too. So maybe it's not related.

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . but does one's music improve more rapidly if one strives to improve one's character first and foremost? . . .

Only if your character includes laziness!

[UsuallyPickin]

Character OVER Practice? Wow ....No I don't think so .. without technique the music you make will be limited to whatever level of technique you manage to acquire. Competency in playing requires, above all, time well spent.
The planet can always do with more well rounded personalities .... people of character if you will. And that may in the long run make for becoming a better musician.
Ideally both are fostered congruently ....... keeping in mind that being happy is to be part of being successful.

[mandocrucian]

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Being too lazy (or not) to put in the time and practice? (and similar questions)

And now... some Music "With Character" (or should that be "Music from a 'character'"?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nz9jR_AuLM

[stevedenver]

I am having a very hard time with the premise of the OP.

First, thinking about vocals instead of mandolin, as being what i suggest is the most extreme example of a muscians internal state,

I can think of many singers that certainly had different " characters ", good, bad, julliard, home grown, addict, etc,

Even a bubble boy has character, a prodigy, a pauper or a prince. No one is without character, of some sort. This is where im lost.

I think the language analogy is a great one. Communication is sometimes dependent on mutual understanding. And yet, often i find singers and composers i love and interpret one way, who meant to convey something entirely different.

I think of judy collins technically refined both sides now versus joni's version. Both singers with , imho, a hugely different instrument and character.

One needs to be able to easily use the instrument, be it lryics, instrument , voice, as a prerequisite.

Id suggest in life there are many different types of people, with or without "character" who are effective due to skill and preparation more than something as nebulous as character.

I think the premises of being well rounded as somehow translating to being able to deliver music is a pipe dream. I have played with many nice well rounded decent folks who don't practice. They sound like it. Yet other vocalists who can barely change chords and grab you. Possibly because they sing a lot and think and feel a lot.

[Tom Haywood]

Thinking back to what I observed in Nashville in the early 1970s. Lots and lots of musicians all playing at the most amazing skill levels you ever saw. Truly, the guy working the counter at McDonald's could play several instruments and sing, all with better skill than you or I might achieve in two more lifetimes. And he had a very likeable character. Most all of these folks grew up in families where the parents played at a high level of skill and performance and who passed on to their children the love of music, some inherent ability, and the commitment to practice and improve their skills. But the players who had paying jobs had something more - unique character. Practice, skill and a pleasant character were totally necessary, but they didn't get you the job. A producer explained to me that he was in the "entertainment" business, and an entertaining character was essential to being hired in that town.

This gets at the notion that playing music involves both a "performer" and an "audience" to appreciate the performance. I've found that audiences absolutely want to hear the skillful players, especially if they are paying money. But even more essential is that the musicians must use the songs to convey some feelings to people in the audience. The ability to connect emotionally almost always trumps the playing skill level. It gets confusing when that ability to connect is called "character", because some of the best musicians at connecting do not have the character you would want your children to emulate.

We usually like a song or a musical piece because it speaks to us at some emotional level. The same song speaks to me differently than it does to you, but it brings up some emotion and often some specific memory in each of us. The musician chooses to learn and perform that song for the same reasons, which might include a deep emotional desire to demonstrate his skills. To the extent it tells a story that resonates with his/her own experience, we see their individual character coming through in that song and that is what makes it powerful. But, actually, I think the power is in the fact that the connection brings out our own character.

[Charlieshafer]

Technique is the same thing as a car, ready to drive. On it's own, it has no ability to go, or no idea where to go. The musician's, or artist's or actor's vision is the road map, and it's his character that defines the choice of the direction. All are necessary in equal measures. No one facet is greater than the others. Too many technically gifted artists have nothing to say, and too many earnest, well-thought out artists can't get their ideas out.

[bruce.b]

No, character has nothing to do with it, as plenty of great musicians have proven. It's all about becoming an excellent musician. Play the hell out of your instrument, be obsessed with it.

[dhergert]

This is all far too introspective for me. I'm of the school that none of us can accurately judge our own character, it is the people around us who can do that. It's very much like our music, no one who plays and/or sings actually hears exactly what the audience hears.

To me, I do music because I love doing music. I practice for the same reason. That's enough for me.

:mandosmiley:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2Rhh_4GZmU

[JeffD]

I am certainly not denying the value of being able to access one's understanding, experiences, emotions, is playing expressively or musically or in providing a new interpretation for the music. I am just arguing that playing expressively is not the same as expressing yourself.

[JeffD]

In fact, the big mistake that many people believe is that a fiction writer, for example, is necessarily basing a work on his or her life. Yes, there are some that do that, but many more who are brilliantly sketching out characters that never existed or events that never happened but are conveyed through imagination. The same goes for the feelings that a good player can put into whatever music he or she plays.

Yes yes! Even in composition, one might not be expressing oneself, and still writing a compelling expressive piece.


I think you're reading this all too literally. As Jim states, it's about imagination, symbolism, catharsis, etc. We're all human, for better and worse. THROUGH music, we can find a great many commonality, symbiosis, etc. Music is a medium of transference and kinesis. Music is emotion..

I think it is through lack of taking things literally (or at face value) that we get into trouble here. I will admit to the inability to communicate effectively in any fashion, maybe especially music, without some kind of personal reveal, some kind of presentation of self. But that is not the deliberate expression of self.


Declaring that a person needs one or the other -- character or practice -- always sounds to me like the search for a break or shortcut.

Something to that. Having the most content filled character and empathy does not substitute for volume control, speed control, having an instrument with a good dynamic range, etc.


Playing music is about expression, which means having something to express and being able to express it.

That is the commonly understood trope I am (ridiculously it feels) arguing against. Playing music is about playing music. The best playing music is about the music being played. What ever resources one has, musical talent, empathy for people, in touch with emotions, manual dexterity, amazing endurance, great smile, all of that, whatever and whoever we are, comes into the performance. Of course it does. But they are tools. One doesn't build a house in order to use a hammer. And one doesn't play music in order to express oneself.

Oh well, I am sounding foolish to myself a little bit, repeating myself.

Utah Phillips, "Golden Voice of the Great Southwest", once said that folk songs are often songs about people that in reality we really probably don't want to meet.

I deny the proposition that coal miners would necessarily do a better job singing Ed Wheeler's "Coal Tattoo" than Ed himself, or Kathy Mattea. Maybe writing the song, but singing it? I think musical ability and empathy are at least as important as any direct experience with the subject matter.

[JeffD]

If music is self expression, I should give up now. I have had no extraordinary experiences, no traumas beyond what is expected in a lived life, no direct involvement with anything of historical note, and as a general rule I am not all that touchy feely out of appropriate contexts. I can think of approximately 0.00 people who would have a particular interest in my life, or my feelings about my life. Well perhaps a psychotherapist, but not without paying a fee.

[Charlieshafer]

No, character has nothing to do with it, as plenty of great musicians have proven. It's all about becoming an excellent musician. Play the hell out of your instrument, be obsessed with it.

I'm just using this quote as a jumping off point, not because I vehemently disagree with it. However, playing the heck out of your instrument doesn't mean you're a good musician. How many ultra-long, self-indulgent, meandering solos have we all sat through? And yeah, even though a musician's personal character many not be the stuff of angels, that does come though in the music. When a guy is playing angry, a certain snap comes out in those chords or solos, especially vocals. You simply can not separate one from the other if you're looking for a complete musician.

[Tom Haywood]

"Hank, why must you live out those songs that you wrote?" - Hank Williams, Jr.

[catmandu2]

... I am just arguing that playing expressively is not the same as expressing yourself.

Could you elaborate? What is your concept of "self"?

[catmandu2]

If music is self expression, I should give up now. I have had no extraordinary experiences, no traumas beyond what is expected in a lived life, no direct involvement with anything of historical note, and as a general rule I am not all that touchy feely out of appropriate contexts. I can think of approximately 0.00 people who would have a particular interest in my life, or my feelings about my life. Well perhaps a psychotherapist, but not without paying a fee.

Music can be self-expression, and much more. That others may feel it is not, or do not desire it so, I have no quarrel with. Though I typically seek to compel others to search for more. Music can be liberating, enlightening, path to the self and beyond, and many other things. For me, it is a most effective method. I always say that it is a most effective means of probing our existence/experience.

*I hate to sound a charlatan, for there are many in our midst. Yet, IME, Art is an extremely valuable perspective. In fact, I find (playing) music to have greater existential meaning perhaps among all things.

[tiltman]

Interesting ideas in this thread.
I'm also a songwriter. My life (thankfully) has been relatively boring so I use the roads I didn't travel or the lives of others as material.
For example, I just finished a murder ballad (based on a true story) about a fellow who kills his mistress, gets caught, goes to the chair...
(probably few murder ballads written by the perp - none by the victim)
Can't a picker reach outside of themselves and their lives for material and expression?

Kirk

[foldedpath]

Withouth diminishing the value of art, I think it's okay to recognize that not all music is high art, or requires a deep well of self-expression to perform well.

In a few minutes, I'm off to a Sunday session of fiddles and pipes where I'll play what it essentially "happy feet music." Devoid of actual dancers, but that's what the music was written for... to get your feet moving and bring a smile to your face. Not a lot of self-expression or character required there, although technique and understanding of the music sure helps.

We might also play some slower tunes, including one or two with emotional resonance like Tom Anderson's "Da Slokit Light." This was written as a lament for a vanished home town (and recent death of his wife), and should be played with a respect for the context, but without going into syrupy, maudlin territory. Always a danger with this kind of thing. Again, it's more knowledge of how the tune wants to be played, instead of trying to emotionally channel the guy who wrote it.

The word "Authentic" was brought up earlier, and personally I think that's a slippery slope, best avoided in polite conversation. While I'm sure we'd all like to play in a way that sounds authentic for the style of music we've chosen, discussion about it often devolves into arguments about whose nationality and what race is allowed to play certain types of music. I'll just stake out one position there, saying I think anyone can play any genre of music, including ethnic/"folk" idioms, if you spend enough time studying and playing with the people who know something about it.

[catmandu2]

Withouth diminishing the value of art, I think it's okay to recognize that not all music is high art, or requires a deep well of self-expression ...


Otoh, if the "self" is involved, by necessity then it is "self expression." (But certainly I'm not suggesting that all "self expression" is art; but I do suggest that fundamentally all "self expression" - i.e. experience - is "authentic")

Re "authentic" - I use(d) it as a way of describing "original"; I'm often illustrating one spectrum pole of playing/music as experience = authenticism (from a fundamentally phenomenological perspective). (Personally I always offer the perspective during any such dialectic pertaining to "authenticity" as the forums will show over the years ; ) )

*I use "Art/art" here primarily as "a way of seeing/experience/perspective," an approach, paradigm, etc.

[mandocrucian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwD_SulAWP8

[JeffD]

Otoh, if the "self" is involved, by necessity then it is "self expression.".

But its not deliberate self expression. If I ask you for a loan, I am involved and there is a lot about me you learn. But my intent is not self expression, its to see if you will lend me money.

(And in this example, I might deliberate edit what about me gets expressed in order to try and evoke sympathy.)

[catmandu2]

But its not deliberate self expression. If I ask you for a loan, I am involved and there is a lot about me you learn. But my intent is not self expression, its to see if you will lend me money.

(And in this example, I might deliberate edit what about me gets expressed in order to try and evoke sympathy.)

But this is making several assumptions. Not least of which - that we enjoy free will ; )

[JeffD]

But this is making several assumptions. Not least of which - that we enjoy free will ; )

Well if you back into the fundamentals far enough, everything becomes suspect. :cool:

[Mark Gunter]

Hey, hey, let's not move into ontological territory.

The thing about JeffD's writings is that they are usually thought-provoking observations. Those in this thread seem a little off-base to my way of thinking, but there has been some good, thought provoking discussion throughout this thread. Great reading.

[Jim Garber]

If music is self expression, I should give up now. I have had no extraordinary experiences, no traumas beyond what is expected in a lived life, no direct involvement with anything of historical note, and as a general rule I am not all that touchy feely out of appropriate contexts. I can think of approximately 0.00 people who would have a particular interest in my life, or my feelings about my life. Well perhaps a psychotherapist, but not without paying a fee.

Hmmmmm... I am a bit worried about you, Jeff. Are you looking way too deeply into this? Since when does any musician (or any artist) need trauma, extraordinary experience, etc. in order to create art/play music? Look, you can label it whatever you want... if you want to just play expressively and not include yourself then do that (tho I am not quite sure how to do that, but if you can then do it). I know from your countless posts (fast approaching mine in number) that you love the mandolin, playing music in whatever way you do, otherwise I doubt you would be here at the Cafe. IMHO no matter how you play, you put something of yourself into your music, unless, of course, you are a machine. Maybe just relax and enjoy doing it. As some very wise man said in his signature, "Fill your boots, man!" :)

[Bertram Henze]

If music is self expression, I should give up now. I have had no extraordinary experiences, no traumas beyond what is expected in a lived life, no direct involvement with anything of historical note, and as a general rule I am not all that touchy feely out of appropriate contexts. I can think of approximately 0.00 people who would have a particular interest in my life, or my feelings about my life. Well perhaps a psychotherapist, but not without paying a fee.

As a listener, I wouldn't want "extraordinary", but something I can relate to. I listen to music to have those of my emotions amplified that I like, and for that the musician should not be too far from me, mentally.
Take BG, for example: a cosy and comforting celebration of normality. And normality is becoming a rare commodity in this world.

[mandocaster]

I read album notes of some artist long ago that the song "Liberty" expressed the deep longing of Americans for freedom. Personally I thought that was a bit much, given that it's a happy little ditty without a lot of profound emotional messages. The same song could have been titled "Uncle Joe's Underwear" and been performed the same.
However, there is a language of music that touches a part of us that words can't. That language comes best from a player or singer who can connect with that place and is willing to let into their playing. If you are 4th chair violin in an orchestra playing Mozart it would be best if you tried to be a part of the whole, but the soloist better play with something more. Here I am dancing about architecture or however the quote goes.

[farmerjones]

I've seen it suggested more than once that for a musician to progress quickest, it's more important to be a well-rounded person, than to narrowly focus on technique improvement.

There is a lot of leeway for discussion here - certainly several virtuosi come to mind who were far from paragons.

Not that I wish to escape practicing scales and arpeggios - but does one's music improve more rapidly if one strives to improve one's character first and foremost?

Thanks for any replies to this vague philosophical question.


Imagine a person that has complex ideas they need to express, but all they have is a limited vocabulary. Or imagine a person that wishes to convey complex ideas but can't enunciate in his/her native tongue. As it's been stated, Music in every way can be compared to a language. As one develops, feedback will tell one what one must work on. One's own feedback will work fine for playing by yourself, to yourself. (nothing wrong with that) Which brings us to . . . .


The tangential part of the thread: Music as it is, is either yours, mine or ours. OIW If you play or write, in a basement to yourself, you may do whatever you please. If you play before an audience of one or more, you may not care, or be paid or understand, but you've jumped into an area where the Music is not just yours. You may or may not know or care, but your audience is opining as you play. You may choose to alienate. Make them happy. Make them sad. Make them neutral. If they're still sitting there at the end of the song/tune, make no mistake about it, you're doing something. I guess my point is to know this. This is feedback. Could be an instructor. Could be family. Could be a stadium.


I thought Liberty was a sailor's shore leave?

[Ausdoerrt]

The opening statement of this thread sounds like something that'd fit right into the "reasons to skip practice" thread :))

P.S. You do need to *practice* the technical skills as well as the expressive skills.

[red7flag]

It seems to me that creativity is limited by the ability to express it.

I do not like to practice much, but I know that acquiring a pallet is essential to express what is in my soul. When playing for people, I love when an expression that I practiced comes out in my play.

[Shelagh Moore]

I've met a lot of people with tremendous technical ability who are unable to convey the beauty, meaning or essence of a piece of music so in my view you need both, as well as the love of doing it as mentioned by Pepe above.

[Amanda Gregg]

A very narrow definition of expression is being employed here. One example of expression is, "I think the tune sounds like this." When we play music, we make choices. In doing so, we express ourselves.

[JeffD]

A very narrow definition of expression is being employed here. One example of expression is, "I think the tune sounds like this." When we play music, we make choices. In doing so, we express ourselves.

You are correct.

I guess it depends on what the OP is getting at. I took the more narrow definition thinking that one develops the character to express one's inner self in the playing of music. The broader use would be, as you say, expressing one's preferences and choices.

[JeffD]

Hmmmmm... I am a bit worried about you, Jeff. Are you looking way too deeply into this? Since when does any musician (or any artist) need trauma, extraordinary experience, etc. in order to create art/play music?

Exactly correct. All one needs, besides the technical abilities, is an understanding of the music, the culture, the context, and perhaps the audience's expectations.

That's where I am stuck, because I can't see what all of that has to do with expressing myself (narrowly defined). I want to play music, share a great tune, express only perhaps my enthusiasm for the great tune. I have nothing more to express.

[catmandu2]

We are actors, and the music is our script. And unless we are composers or playwrights, the emotion of the piece is not (necessarily) ours. If it happens to be ours as well that's interesting, but not very relevant, and doesn't make for a better or worse performance.

I would liken score more to a recipe, or datum. Sound is sculptural. The player uses color, shade, time, nuance, drama. There are far more aspects and dimensions to be considered. To distill music (or the social, psychological, and philosophical construct of the "self") into some kind of linear logic as you are attempting is missing much of the picture. Modernity demands that we deconstruct the whole and specialize in fragmentation in the effort to dispel mystery. What of imagination, intuition, art and poetry (symbolism), dance, existential awareness, love?

Attempting to faithfully reproduce music from a score from time before is one approach to playing, hearing, and appreciating music. This is just one slender slice of the enchilada, however.

Very often, one's enthusiasm for music is sufficient i would imagine. However, one may need further justification for involvement in music, such as you express. Have you tried improvisation, or composition?

An aside - you seem gratified by writing. Do you use imagination here? Are you interested in expressing yourself through writing? Ever borrow or steal an idea, or phrase, etc?

[Bertram Henze]

...express only perhaps my enthusiasm for the great tune.

That is much more than many technique wizards have to show. The good musician steps aside and does not stand in the way of the power of the music. That requires feeling the music, and it is the most expressive device I know.

Expression does not mean you have to actually press anything out :whistling:

[Charlieshafer]

That is much more than many technique wizards have to show. The good musician steps aside and does not stand in the way of the power of the music. That requires feeling the music, and it is the most expressive device I know.

Expression does not mean you have to actually press anything out :whistling:

Yup. A bunch of the really fine violinists I work with all really want to achieve the perfect zen one-note solo, which grabs at the lister's heart with sadness, pathos, love, anger, excitement, joy and every other emotion on the spectrum. All out of one note. After one show, an audience member came up to Darol Anger and said something to the effect of, "I can't believe how many notes you get packed into one solo so effortlessly." Darol looks at both of us and says, "Dang, I was shooting for just one note."

[Jim Garber]

Exactly correct. All one needs, besides the technical abilities, is an understanding of the music, the culture, the context, and perhaps the audience's expectations.

That's where I am stuck, because I can't see what all of that has to do with expressing myself (narrowly defined). I want to play music, share a great tune, express only perhaps my enthusiasm for the great tune. I have nothing more to express.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your analysis. IMHO there is something else beside technical ability and understanding the other things you mention. In addition to the fact that none of us are completely alike with physical differences (musculature, size of fingers and hands, flexibility of joints and the like), what is it that differentiates one musician in a particular musical genre from another? I can listen to a bunch of top-level fiddlers playing the same Irish tune, possibly even from the same town and yet there are differences in their playing and interpretation of that tune. Same with any other genre.

It seems tho, that you have a problem with expressing one's self in music. But, we do make choices as we play even within a simple fiddle tune. I may play that tune ten times but each time I might put more emphasis on one note over another, leave out some notes, play different doublestops, play the tune in a lower or higher octave. And that may be within a more subtle improvisation genre than say jazz or bluegrass. Even in classical, supposedly more rigid, there are choices of tempo, phrasing and even ornamentation. Why choose one of these alternatives over another? These are choices that a player makes to put himself or herself into the music.

[JeffD]

Expression does not mean you have to actually press anything out :whistling:

That is the crux of it, expression seems to imply something to express.

[JeffD]

I see this in the music teachers recommendations to learn to play expressively. Example:


Music is a form of expression. Expression is the process of making known one’s thoughts or feelings.

In the context of playing a piece of music you did not write, this is incorrect. Expressive playing is the process of making known the feelings the author of the piece intended, or likely intended, or the feelings you interpret the piece to have, or a different set of feeling you think would be interesting for the piece to have. It has no necessary connection to the actual feelings you have.

[Bill McCall]

....... Expressive playing is the process of making known the feelings the author of the piece intended, or likely intended, or the feelings you interpret the piece to have, or a different set of feeling you think would be interesting for the piece to have. It has no necessary connection to the actual feelings you have.

The choices you make as to how to play a piece clearly express your feelings to that piece, which of course you have at the time of playing. Even if that's just a metronomic striking of the appropriate notes or a literal following of the dynamic notation, its your choice and feeling as to how that music 'should' be presented.

No matter where you go, there you are. And it comes out in the notes.

[Jim Garber]

In the context of playing a piece of music you did not write, this is incorrect. Expressive playing is the process of making known the feelings the author of the piece intended, or likely intended, or the feelings you interpret the piece to have, or a different set of feeling you think would be interesting for the piece to have. It has no necessary connection to the actual feelings you have.

So, expression in music in your view is entirely an intellectual exercise devoid of any emotional context you yourself may feel? Are you saying that on Monday a particularly skilled musician is depressed and on Wednesday, when he is having a much better day, his playing is not at all affected by his mood and that both performances are identical?

[foldedpath]

So, expression in music in your view is entirely an intellectual exercise devoid of any emotional context you yourself may feel? Are you saying that on Monday a particularly skilled musician is depressed and on Wednesday, when he is having a much better day, his playing is not at all affected by his mood and that both performances are identical?

Egad! I would hope so! Especially if you're playing for money, or just joining with friends to have fun with the music.

I guess I'm with JeffD on this one. Maybe we're just talking genre differences here, and not some Ultimate Truth about playing music.

What I want to do with the music I'm interested in right now, is be a conduit for the tunes. Nothing more or less. I want to "do justice to the music," whatever that takes. There is nothing of *me* in there except what I've learned about the techniques and context to bring out the music and make it shine. I'm a vehicle, not a driver.

Now, I've played in other genres where that's different. In Blues bands, I was a lead guitar player and I was expected to put something of myself out there in the music when playing solos. That's fun, but it's a period of my life that I aged out of, basically. Now I just want to do justice to a narrow genre of instrumental tunes that are much older than me, and played better by others, but I'm doing my best to be an interpreter and selfless conduit for the music. Do it justice, don't screw it up.

[catmandu2]

Yes, genre but more probably form has much dominion over relative liberties in the music. Ensemble playing such as session dance tunes are about uniformity for the most part (key, version, tempo, etc). But different forms, within ITM for example, such as airs, pibrochs, etc provide for ample "self" expression. Fwiw, im going the opposite direction in my playing - solo and slow music - where opportunity for "self expression" abounds.. Like TM said, "in the modern world, one doesn't play slow air."

[FLATROCK HILL]

Interesting how this discussion has morphed away from the original question. A question that made no sense to me until I read post #3 by Louise NM. As she said, (I paraphrase) for most of us, the character vs practice ship has sailed. It's the kids that need to have some balance in their lives to be happier, healthier adults.

As for the current discussion, all of this talk about putting ones own feelings and experiences into the music they perform is a bit silly to my way of thinking. When Bill said to the Bluegrass Boys "I want y'all to sing 'A million times, I loved you Bess" as opposed to 'Best', he wasn't expecting them to have any genuine affection for Bess. Just to sing the words. They did just fine.

[catmandu2]

As for the current discussion, all of this talk about putting ones own feelings and experiences into the music they perform is a bit silly to my way of thinking. When Bill said to the Bluegrass Boys "I want y'all to sing 'A million times, I loved you Bess" as opposed to 'Best', he wasn't expecting them to have any genuine affection for Bess. Just to sing the words. They did just fine.

Perhaps this is true of bluegrass. However there are many forms and approaches in music calling for exactly the opposite. And this makes for an interesting aspect for discussion: various forms, and the personalities inspired by them -

(*which, for my money, is a more intriguing topic than "character or practice" - for which I believe the answer is axiomatic)

Thanks to Jeff for eliciting it, and cheers for a good conversation :)

[mandroid]

Entertaining Character , on Stage. can make up for a sub virtuoso performance,
it is a show you are putting on, really.. stage patter..

:whistling:

[foldedpath]

Yes, genre but more probably form has much dominion over relative liberties in the music. Ensemble playing such as session dance tunes are about uniformity for the most part (key, version, tempo, etc). But different forms, within ITM for example, such as airs, pibrochs, etc provide for ample "self" expression.

Sure, I agree about slow airs and pibroch. But I don't think a mandolin is the right instrument to play those tunes, which I've covered in other threads here about the pros and cons of tremolo. It's why I've been learning Irish flute, but that takes us completely off-topic
;)

[Jess L.]

My piano teacher used to tell me, "Put some expression into your playing." I was like, "What exactly am I supposed to be expressing?" I didn't feel anything, and the dots-on-the-page didn't inspire me towards anything in particular either.

I just didn't get it.

It wasn't until some time later (still a kid though) I took up clawhammer banjo and got hooked on modal scales. :mandosmiley:

Now *that* was some expression I *could* identify with, :mandosmiley: at the time, the modal scales (the usual fiddle-tunes dance music) were all it took to make me "feel" something to "express". I didn't even have to think about it, it just came with the music.

Unlike the prior piano music, most of which I really couldn't identify with at all.

So I guess it helps to be playing a genre of music that one has a 'feel' for, or can 'identify' with in some way.

In my case, I'd grown up with oldtime fiddle/banjo dance music, and the only reason I nagged my parents into buying me an old junk piano and getting me piano lessons (yup, it was my idea, opposite of normal) was because of one specific tune (Fur Elise) I'd heard a kid at school play, I thought it sounded nice, I was like "I wanna learn how to play that."

(Lifelong bad habit: hear cool tune, Must.Learn.How.To.Play.That.Instrument.) :))

But the rest of the piano stuff, the other composers and especially the modern dissonant pieces and exercises etc., meh, at the time I simply didn't sense/feel anything *to* express.

So I would play a piano piece like a robot, then my teacher and I would change places and *she* would play the piece, making it sound all syrupy beautiful and emotional 'n' stuff, with loud notes and soft notes and slow-downs and speed-ups etc. More than just a literal interpretation of what was written on the page.

That teacher really *did* know how to bring a classical piano piece to life, but she couldn't tell me *how* she knew *which* parts to "put more expression into".

(As to whether it was her own expression, or what she thought the composer intended, I have no idea.)

Without some explanation of *why* some parts needed more "expression", I was still in the dark as to exactly how to go about the whole expression thing.

Apparently, expression is something that can't be taught, you either have it or you don't.

I finally concluded that such 'expression' was unnecessary :whistling: and I ditched the piano (at least the classical stuff) and went back to playing fiddle tunes. :grin:

With fiddle tunes, the expression is natural and obvious - make it something people want to tap their feet to, and dance :mandosmiley: to. Happy music or, in the case of the aforementioned modal scales, an unnerving aspect of melancholy but still with the background of a good solid rhythmic dance tune.

A good fiddler is certainly not playing a mere "simple tune" by any stretch of the imagination, but the 'expression' is more about motivating people towards cheerfulness, instead of the classical thing of wide variances of loud/quiet and tempo changes etc.

Addenda:
Since then, I've played some original expressive mood-music stuff mostly as catharsis for various things, it's helpful in that regard but I'm assuming it probably doesn't have a whole lot of market appeal. In fact, it has only limited appeal to *me*, 'overly' expressive music can be good in short doses but not a steady diet of it.

[catmandu2]

Sure, I agree about slow airs and pibroch. But I don't think a mandolin is the right instrument to play those tunes, which I've covered in other threads here about the pros and cons of tremolo. It's why I've been learning Irish flute, but that takes us completely off-topic
;)

I was just about to retire when I reflected and realized - the topic is probably all seen from mandolin perspective. Oops (duh). (I have this thing about saying the wrong thing)

I have this image of Mr Monroe: "Welcome to the modern world, son"

[Bob A]

I dunno, all this is far beyond the reality of making music, and is more or less mere intellectualising of the possible processes involved.

After several years of playing, one finds oneself listening to what it coming out of one's instrument, and thinking "I'd like this to sound like. . . " and magically your fingers just go ahead and do it. You, the listener/player/observer, are expressing your unspoken wish of what you'd like to hear, and lo and behold, it happens! Or maybe not quite, so as the music flows through you , it is subtly changed until it matches your preference of the moment.

[JeffD]

So, expression in music in your view is entirely an intellectual exercise devoid of any emotional context you yourself may feel?

Pretty much, except how one may pull on one's feelings to find a way to express what the music needs. Not unlike a method actor I suppose.


Are you saying that on Monday a particularly skilled musician is depressed and on Wednesday, when he is having a much better day, his playing is not at all affected by his mood and that both performances are identical?

They should be pretty darn close. If the musician's job is to play that piece on Monday and on Wednesday, and to play it well, and to play it expressively, then what the musician personally feels on a particular day needs to be irrelevant.

[Bertram Henze]

If the musician's job is to play that piece on Monday and on Wednesday, and to play it well, and to play it expressively, then what the musician personally feels on a particular day needs to be irrelevant.

That about sums up what's expected from a professional. But if a musician is able to totally open up to his music, that should overwrite all of his own emotions he might have had 5 minutes ago, i.e. with the first few bars he plays of, e.g. Singing in the Rain, he should have forgotten that, say, his mother died yesterday.

I found I just stated another reason I could not be a professional musician.

[Beanzy]

For me I just need understanding of the musical intent and a desire to deliver the tune so it engages people, to which I apply the techniques needed if they are in my bag.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been in a lesson or practicing when the technique penny drops; "If you do this, it sounds more ......" Kerching! - it's in the bag ready to try where it may fit. So I am capable of understanding what is needed & have the tools to deliver. Then it's just a matter of adding that sauce to taste.

Apart from understanding and the ability to deliver what is needed, my character development would seem to be a bit of a non-issue in my music playing or the connection with others.
For that reason I suspect the use of 'character' in the original premise may have more to do with the character of the tune or song.
If that is the case I would say it is actually a question about understanding the musical intent and having the ability to interpret and deliver that. Musicians practice musical interpretation all the time & they sure need to practice the techniques needed to deliver that.
Understanding the character of the piece is one part of that, your actual character or persona would only seem relevant in so far as it brings you to to the current state of development that allows you to interpret the music as you do.
How many musicians talk about having a more mature understanding of a piece from their younger self?, I've certainly heard many.

I think it would achieve little to present it as one or the other, because developing a musical understanding and the vocabulary of techniques to deliver that are what musicianship is about.

[Dagger Gordon]

I dunno.

When I think of the hundreds of times I have seen musicians playing with their eyes closed, clearly 'away' with the music, I simply cannot believe that they are not expressing themselves - indeed often expressing themselves from a fairly deep part of their soul (at the risk of sounding completely new-agey).
In fact, why do people refer to music as 'soulful', if not that?
You could say it is the music itself (ie an Irish air, a hymn, lyrics, harmony, whatever) that is the real source of this and the musician is at the service of this music in some way, and that is probably true enough, but I definitely think it goes far further. If you are playing music at any sort of emotional level, it is way beyond practise (or merely technical proficiency) and certainly involves character (and feelings, expressiveness etc).

[Bertram Henze]

...but I definitely think it goes far further.

Sometimes I am down there, and I wish I could be more often. I have noticed that this happens when all technical worries have vanished, i.e. when everybody (not just I) has practised enough, which can be hard to achieve in a session. But it happens.

So we arrive again at that connection: no practising without character, no character without practising. It's a chicken egg problem...

[Ausdoerrt]

When I think of the hundreds of times I have seen musicians playing with their eyes closed, clearly 'away' with the music, I simply cannot believe that they are not expressing themselves - indeed often expressing themselves from a fairly deep part of their soul (at the risk of sounding completely new-agey).

I guess that's what it seems like to the listener, but from my own experience it has more to do with concentration and cutting off the unnecessary distractions. It may also have to do with enjoying the music, as well as feeling sleepy/tired. Finally it may be part of the (pre-planned) performance for certain styles of music.

[Beanzy]

I know exactly what you mean and I get in that zone fairly often. However it's no guarantee that the listeners will get the same effect. I've known too many performances where the listeners are left behind for me to equate the two. How many times has a song like Danny Boy been murdered by lack of musical understanding and a poor interpretation? I'd hazard a guess at most of the times it is performed. Yet when delivered with power and a well developed voice that can hold notes cleanly and true it even moves my tired old ears. I really don't think you have to be in the zone to deliver the goods, it's a bonus for you as a performer if you can indulge that, but the place where the reaction is needed is in the listener. As the saying goes; as long as you can fake that, you've got it made.

[red7flag]

I see this in the music teachers recommendations to learn to play expressively. Example:



In the context of playing a piece of music you did not write, this is incorrect. Expressive playing is the process of making known the feelings the author of the piece intended, or likely intended, or the feelings you interpret the piece to have, or a different set of feeling you think would be interesting for the piece to have. It has no necessary connection to the actual feelings you have.

Jeff, This is your opinion and not fact.

[JeffD]

When I think of the hundreds of times I have seen musicians playing with their eyes closed, clearly 'away' with the music, I simply cannot believe that they are not expressing themselves - indeed often expressing themselves from a fairly deep part of their soul.

Its all about authenticity. If you can fake that you've got it made. :))

I love those powerful moments in music. And if the player seems to be really feeling it, it sure adds to the performance, makes me, as a listener, feel more.

But I have never thought it was more than a technique to make the music more effective.

[JeffD]

I might be real prejudiced by my early experiences as a kid. It was a time when a lot of kids were taking up guitar, and the older ones playing Neil Young, the younger ones playing James Taylor. Kids who never saw drug abuse singing "The Damage Done" with full almost crying emotion. Playing down and out blues with a very expensive guitar bought by parents. Virgins who had never been far from home singing "House of the Rising Sun" as if they really meant it. Putting on the emotion to look like a sensitive-but-emotionally-unavailable-guy with that eternal two day need for a shave.

It was such an effective look for getting girls that it really got me all mixed up. On the one hand I desperately wanted to be that attractive, on the other hand I lost a little respect for girls so easily taken in by that persona, and I would not doubt that such confusion drove me to play the mandolin - to be cool and play music, but decidedly different than those Don Johnson wannabees.

159266

[mandocaster]

"If I'm going to sing like someone else, then I don't need to sing at all" Billie Holiday.
I guess I get your point, JeffD, but I can't quite why you see this as a motivator for YOUR music.

[Bertram Henze]

I might be real prejudiced by my early experiences as a kid. It was a time when a lot of kids were taking up guitar, and the older ones playing Neil Young, the younger ones playing James Taylor. Kids who never saw drug abuse singing "The Damage Done" with full almost crying emotion. Playing down and out blues with a very expensive guitar bought by parents. Virgins who had never been far from home singing "House of the Rising Sun" as if they really meant it. Putting on the emotion to look like a sensitive-but-emotionally-unavailable-guy with that eternal two day need for a shave.

It was such an effective look for getting girls that it really got me all mixed up. On the one hand I desperately wanted to be that attractive, on the other hand I lost a little respect for girls so easily taken in by that persona, and I would not doubt that such confusion drove me to play the mandolin - to be cool and play music, but decidedly different than those Don Johnson wannabees.

159266

Everybody did this impersonation thing in their youth. It may be a consolation that many of those attractive guys were really into other attractive guys. Forgetting impossible dreams and starting the real journey into our real selves should have taken care of all that by now.
And maybe we can hear again those songs which were inadvertently connected to sad occasions (I vividly remember that garbage can I dropped that Barclay James Harvest csssette into after my girlfriend had left me, but today I can listen again to "Hymn" and with a grim smile notice what you can do with just two chords). Music carries unplanned emotion and it can form character in unexpected ways.

[Scott Rucker]

Music is both parts. Think of language as it's very similar. You can't fully express your thoughts, feelings, ideas, knowledge, etc., without a firm grasp of vocabulary but you can talk all day without ever saying anything.

[Jeff Mando]

I can see the Neil Young and James Taylor, they were/are cool........ya kinda lost me on the Don Johnson...............??? :confused:

[JeffD]

"If I'm going to sing like someone else, then I don't need to sing at all" Billie Holiday.
I guess I get your point, JeffD, but I can't quite why you see this as a motivator for YOUR music.

My music? I don't have any music. I play lots of music, but none of it is mine. I don't write any music. I just play it. As best I can.

[JeffD]

Music is both parts. Think of language as it's very similar. You can't fully express your thoughts, feelings, ideas, knowledge, etc., without a firm grasp of vocabulary but you can talk all day without ever saying anything.

Music is different from language in this - if it not a piece or a tune or song that you composed, then it is someone else's message, not your own. Perhaps you can interpret it, decorate it, add some drama, whatever, but that is not expressing yourself, in the way that talking is.

Music has a lot to say, of course it does. I try (as best I can) to let the music do the saying. Music has a lot to say. Me, not so much. :)

[red7flag]

Music is different from language in this - if it not a piece or a tune or song that you composed, then it is someone else's message, not your own. Perhaps you can interpret it, decorate it, add some drama, whatever, but that is not expressing yourself, in the way that talking is.

Music has a lot to say, of course it does. I try (as best I can) to let the music do the saying. Music has a lot to say. Me, not so much. :)

Jeff, I think you do yourself a disservice. The types of music you play is an expression of you. That one person will play a tune note for note like the original say something. Another will make it their own, that also says something. Either can be good or not, but not due to the approach, but by the application. I see music as a language just with notes rather than words. Music speaks from the soul, the mind, and emotions, all three, or none. I do write and my best music comes from emotions and were stimulated by huge events. You might not know the event, but you can feel the emotion or pain. Just my thoughts.

[catmandu2]

Everything you do is of course an expression of your "self." I think what Jeff is saying, wrt music, is that the repertoire and approach with which he's familiar is of the type that originates from score or previously established elsewhere. I don't think it's of a particular disservice or anything like that - it's his perspective and his experience (I'm only contrasting this by example of all the music/playing where this is wholely not the approach).

We really could have just distilled it thus: reading vs improv - and all the shades/approaches between

[Jim Garber]

OK… OK… OK… !

I think I am done with all this. Our discussions/disagreements here have lots to do with differences in semantics, definitions (self, expression, music, genre, etc.) and neurological conceptions.

Though interesting and thought-provoking, I am truly ready to leave all of this thread to those who prefer the back-and-forth of it. I want to get back to my instruments and play music as well as I can with whatever feelings I can muster. I might stop by on this thread to see if the thread breaks the record of the Blue Chip threads but in the meantime, let's all play some music. I have some mandolins and fiddles that are calling out to me.

[farmerjones]

Darn! I was going to wax eloquent. :cool:

[Charlie Bernstein]

So, expression in music in your view is entirely an intellectual exercise devoid of any emotional context you yourself may feel? Are you saying that on Monday a particularly skilled musician is depressed and on Wednesday, when he is having a much better day, his playing is not at all affected by his mood and that both performances are identical?

He didn't say any of that.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Jeff, I think you do yourself a disservice. The types of music you play is an expression of you. . . .

So is the way you drive a car or make dinner or play with your cat. But that has nothing to do with the original question.

[Nathan Kellstadt]

I can see the Neil Young and James Taylor, they were/are cool........ya kinda lost me on the Don Johnson...............??? :confused:


This isn't cool?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysYe4M0JAy0

Sorry, I couldn't help myself, and this thread needs more chuckles.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Darn! I was going to wax eloquent. :cool:

I'd rather see you wax my car.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Everybody did this impersonation thing in their youth. . . .

Yep. I tried to look like John Lennon (wire-rims, Nehru jacket, hair parted in the middle), but I wanted to sound like King, Clapton, Josh White, Jr., and (once I'd heard him live), Garcia.

Never achieved the look or the sounds, of course.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Pretty much, except how one may pull on one's feelings to find a way to express what the music needs. Not unlike a method actor I suppose.



They should be pretty darn close. If the musician's job is to play that piece on Monday and on Wednesday, and to play it well, and to play it expressively, then what the musician personally feels on a particular day needs to be irrelevant.

'Zackly. Stephen King said it best (and I might have already mentioned this above, can't remember): an amateur waits for inspiration, a pro gets up in the morning and gets to work.

The musician's job is to entertain, not to share and bare - regardless of his or her mood at the moment. Anything else is letting the audience down.

Expressing feelings is the audience's job: by clapping, laughing, crying, booing, heckling, dancing, cheering, flicking their Bics, or getting up and walking out. (That last one is what mine usually do.)

[Bren]

An amateur like me would like to be in control of their technique enough that they can express themselves without having to think about it too hard. To that end, one must practise and experience playing in public.


Virgins who had never been far from home singing "House of the Rising Sun" as if they really meant it.

OK, that makes me laugh.
I haven't been to folk clubs much but the sight and sound of earnest middle class folk singing songs about labouring down pit, drinking, fighting and the other when they don't appear to have ever done much of any always makes me chuckle.

[catmandu2]

The musician's job is to entertain...

But you see, for some folks music is (much) more than mere entertainment. Personally, from a very early age, I've always derived much more from music, and the other arts. Sometimes I enjoy being only "entertained" by music. However most often I enjoy being stimulated in more ways (or you might say - my preferred style of being entertained involves active engagement on a number of levels). I do understand, however, that for many and perhaps most - music is simply entertainment, plain and simple. Mileage varies, naturally.

I would submit - an entertainer's job is to entertain. But there are many roles and functions of music, just as there are many types of musicians and approaches to playing.

[Tyler K]

But, at the end of the day, those who you may believe take more praise than they should, give a LOT to music. Isn't that more valuable than a little quirky personality?

[mandocaster]

The musician's job is to entertain, not to share and bare - regardless of his or her mood at the moment. Anything else is letting the audience down.


I don't see it. If that were the case Chico Marx (who I love) would be the most significant musician in history. Music can inspire, console, lead us to love or regret, to war or peace or happiness or sadness, etc. etc. music can move huge audiences or just the musician practicing all alone.
It's magic.
Johnny Cash's stunning cover of Hurt comes to mind. Should someone have told him to cut out that interpretive crap, and that it wasn't his song?
I'm getting agitated, but I don't like somebody telling me what my job is.

[Jess L.]

And then there's the probably vast hordes of mostly-unknown studio musicians.

They presumably don't need stage personality or a well-developed character, they just need to be really good musicians who can think outside the box and invent new stuff as needed for whatever project they're working on, and of course not be sociopaths who tick off the other musicians and people they have to work around.

My first clue as to exactly how important studio musicians are to music in general, was when I saw the Carol Kaye interview:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh9zoO4xUKI
(or direct link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh9zoO4xUKI))

Although I guess even studio musicians *start* somewhere else other than studios; in Kaye's case she says she started out playing live gigs, so some degree of audience-appeal and/or 'character' would presumably be necessary to land those gigs in the first place.

[Explorer]

Having recently read dead words on a page aloud, from an old doctor by the name of Seuss, I like thinking that interpretation is *not* where it's at.

[catmandu2]

...
It's magic.

This is rather it then. For a decade or more I've been compelled to get on here and write thousands of posts, all really saying much the same thing: that humans are diverse; some find satisfaction in the parochial or familiar, while others seek to explore. I find music to be of endless rewards and worthy of unlimited pursuit. For others, perhaps it is more a predictable quantity, hobby or pastime. I regard both perspectives more or less equally valid. But I can predictably be found on forums offering my experience, and suggesting there IS much to be found in music and art. I find it tends to give back what we put into it. As a student of art, I've spent most of my adult life extolling the virtues of art, and have had plenty of opportunity to defend this perspective against skeptics and others. Modernity is largely ambivalent if not downright hostile toward Art. But it's as with anything else: some see the world through rational lens of business, others the rhetoric of politics; I prefer poetics.

[sbhikes]

Never practice. Play. If it's not fun, why bother? We are adults, not children. It's different to learn as an adult. Adults learn by trying things and looking for information when we get stuck. Just play, enjoy the process, you'll get better over time and at some point if you feel like you'd really like to practice scales, that's when you will do it.

[JeffD]

let's all play some music. .

Wiser words have not been spoken, in this thread or anywhere else!

[Beanzy]

Never practice. Play. If it's not fun, why bother? We are adults, not children. It's different to learn as an adult. Adults learn by trying things and looking for information when we get stuck. Just play, enjoy the process, you'll get better over time and at some point if you feel like you'd really like to practice scales, that's when you will do it.

Not everyone wants to draw kiddy pictures with crayons. They can be engaging and useful for their emotional impact; just look at all those adverts where the agency uses them to manipulate the reaction. However there is a whole world of art that goes beyond the just having fun and pursues something else for the enjoyment to be found in the result and often just the learning of the craft.

Playing and enjoyment can be limited by a lack of skills and some skills are best learned through practice, guidance, maybe apprenticeship to a master. It depends how high the wire you want to walk is. I think, as many posts here allude to, there are many kinds of satisfaction and sources of joy in music. Not all require the same skills, but those that do demand a variety of high level skills need practice, if your character is motivated to pursue that then you will be able to derive the pleasure from the pursuit. If you are not motivated by that, then it would be bending yourself out of shape to try.

Often practice or guidance is the shortcut to satisfaction. However there is also the danger of becoming the eternal student and never letting yourself use all the skill accumulated to be yourself and truly own the music. As with everything a balance will need to be found for each person.

[Charlie Bernstein]

An amateur like me would like to be in control of their technique enough that they can express themselves without having to think about it too hard. To that end, one must practise and experience playing in public. . . . I haven't been to folk clubs much but the sight and sound of earnest middle class folk singing songs about labouring down pit, drinking, fighting and the other when they don't appear to have ever done much of any always makes me chuckle.

Yup. It took me many years to be able to play for audiences. Worth the wait? Dunno. I just play and write because I like to play and write. It's fun when people like it, but I'd do it even if no one liked it.

Most of the people I play music with are the suburbanites you're talking about. It kind of weirds me out, too. But they're peculiar enough or talented enough that they can overcome the disadvantage of advantage.

An old friend had (and maybe still has) a punk band called Suburban Posers. It did sendups of common suburbia tropes, with titles like "Microwave" and "Planned Community."

But if you go to a good folk-friendly venue (e.g. I used to go to the Bottom Line and the Speakeasy in New York), you might find the real thing.

[farmerjones]

Not everyone wants to draw kiddy pictures with crayons.
Although I understand what you're saying I didn't interpret Sbhikes statement as you did.

The way I took it was, for adults, many times it's better to play tunes rather than drill. Learning music in context rather than not.
I personally wouldn't say no drills at all. But learning things in context seems to be right and proper for me.
Waaaayyy back six pages ago, I still say the answer is practice. Maybe not whip & chain drills, but daily stick & rudder time, as the pilots say. All that "character" will come as a matter of course. If it doesn't, this may not be your bailiwick. The world needs golfers and cyclists too.

[sbhikes]

Not everyone wants to draw kiddy pictures with crayons. They can be engaging and useful for their emotional impact; just look at all those adverts where the agency uses them to manipulate the reaction. However there is a whole world of art that goes beyond the just having fun and pursues something else for the enjoyment to be found in the result and often just the learning of the craft.

Playing and enjoyment can be limited by a lack of skills and some skills are best learned through practice, guidance, maybe apprenticeship to a master. It depends how high the wire you want to walk is. I think, as many posts here allude to, there are many kinds of satisfaction and sources of joy in music. Not all require the same skills, but those that do demand a variety of high level skills need practice, if your character is motivated to pursue that then you will be able to derive the pleasure from the pursuit. If you are not motivated by that, then it would be bending yourself out of shape to try.

Often practice or guidance is the shortcut to satisfaction. However there is also the danger of becoming the eternal student and never letting yourself use all the skill accumulated to be yourself and truly own the music. As with everything a balance will need to be found for each person.

I learned to play by showing up at a weekly jam with an instrument, not knowing the tunes and barely knowing the instrument. They encouraged me to play anyway. I learned it all one note at a time. I'd literally get one note and wait for the tune to come around again so I could get that note again. Then I tried for two, then for the outline of the tune. Week after week, year after year, I filled in more notes, and continue to fill in more notes and make variations. I would sit out the harder tunes until I heard them enough I felt ready to attempt them. Over time, I learned hundreds of tunes this way. After a while, people invited me to more and more paid gigs, I was invited to be on a CD, I busk at the market, people want me there and are happy when I show up. All that without formal lessons or formal practicing. It was all fun the entire way through and any time I got stuck on something, I'd ask someone for help and work on it, but I never saw it in the same sort of light as "well, I gotta do a hour of scales and play these boring etudes and work my way through this book" or whatever. It was all in the spirit of fun. I'd even use the jam as a chance to experiment and try new things because as they always insisted, "nobody can hear you anyway", which is true because there are like 4 guitars and 5 banjos, 12 fiddles, 8 mandolins and a hammer dulcimer that was sent by the Devil himself.

[fatt-dad]

In the realm of language, do we practice our helping verbs? Do we drill the correct pronunciation of through, though, cough, bone, one, gone, etc.? When do we really practice our use of nouns and verbs? Well, we know the answer, after actually learning how to speak! I think it was after 7 or 8 years of speaking that such thoughts even appear in elementary school. Heck, it may have been 7th grade before I even knew what a helping verb meant - not that I hadn't used them.

So, my vote is, "learn to communicate first." Just play! After 10,000 hours, you'll have the skills necessary to steer towards a specialized area of music, advanced theoretical concepts and the like. It's premature to give somebody a mandolin and start right off the bat with advanced theoretical concepts.

Just a few thoughts. . .

f-d

[Charlie Bernstein]

Although I understand what you're saying I didn't interpret Sbhikes statement as you did. . . .

I didn't, either!

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . After 10,000 hours, you'll have the skills necessary . . . .

Or else you'll NEVER have the skills necessary!

[SincereCorgi]

Yeah, you shouldn't be able to sing a murder ballad unless you've committed at least, say, three murders.

There's a great book called "Faking It: The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music" by Barker and Taylor that explores some of the stuff discussed in this thread, going from the earliest recorded music on to the present. Musicians and marketers have carefully cultivated 'authentic' images to sell recordings and show tickets for a really long time- it's weird that we hold middle-class folkies' feet to the fire over it when the last century of music has been more or less a pose.

[Charlieshafer]

Yeah, you shouldn't be able to sing a murder ballad unless you've committed at least, say, three murders.

There's a great book called "Faking It: The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music" by Barker and Taylor that explores some of the stuff discussed in this thread, going from the earliest recorded music on to the present. Musicians and marketers have carefully cultivated 'authentic' images to sell recordings and show tickets for a really long time- it's weird that we hold middle-class folkies' feet to the fire over it when the last century of music has been more or less a pose.

Yeah, and who says sitting on I-95 every morning for an hour isn't suffering. Maybe my baby didn't do me wrong, but that nut in the BMW sure did.

[JeffD]

Heck, only twice in my life have I ever had whisky before breakfast.

[Bertram Henze]

Heck, only twice in my life have I ever had whisky before breakfast.

Whenever I have whisky, next breakfast is bound to come, sooner or later. That's not hard to do.

[foldedpath]

Yeah, and who says sitting on I-95 every morning for an hour isn't suffering. Maybe my baby didn't do me wrong, but that nut in the BMW sure did.

Well, I woke up this afternoon, I saw both cars were gone.
Well, I woke up this afternoon, I saw both cars were gone.
I felt so low down deep inside, I threw my drink across the lawn.

The immortal Michael Mull, folks.


jj-pUvyPYnI

[Randi Gormley]

I've always come down on the side of knowing the basics before trying to fly but I've also never been known for my in-your-face-out-there-changing-the-world personality either. I also don't express "myself" through music-- that's just for fun. I express myself through words and (once upon a time) acting, where putting on an emotion is a learned skill that has nothing to do with what you're actually going through. I don't think the 'character' or 'practice' question is an either/or. I think they help each other.

But reading the discussion of expression through music, I was minded of Hamlet's "O, What a Rogue and Peasant Slave Am I" speech which (mind you, this is without looking it up because I'm feeling lazy right now) has a whole passage about being able to mimic an emotion that has no bearing on reality and goes something like "Is it not monstrous that this player here, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion, could bend his soul so to his own conceit that, from her workings, tears in's eyes, distraction in's aspect, a broken voice -- and all for what? For Hecuba! What is Hecuba to he or he to Hecuba that he should weep for her?" so, yeah, you can provide an emotional outlet that has nothing much to do with current stimuli if you are skilled enough in the niceties of what you are trying to do. It helps a lot if you can draw on imagination mixed with empathy of course. I don't have to actually, say, win the lottery to imagine what it would feel like (although I might be wrong. I don't normally win things). And on the other other hand, I'll probably never really be able to sing the blues. Which may not be all that bad.

[catmandu2]

Well, I woke up this afternoon, I saw both cars were gone.
Well, I woke up this afternoon, I saw both cars were gone.
I felt so low down deep inside, I threw my drink across the lawn.



And Kevin Neeland's bit on PHC : )

Hey, the depth people say being born is a trauma to overcome..

[catmandu2]

I express myself through words...

I often feel as though I'm dwelling in a Dantean garden of earthly delights. The weight of it all, the shear corporeal magnitude, conceit and vanity, words would be so enlightening, I'm waylayed if necessary by symbolic retribution of my own making so I won't complain. I wish to travel light. There's good reasoning, and I'm no benefactor.

[stevedenver]

ive been thinking damned thread this over since my last post.

as to OP post #1, to progress most rapidly, it would seem we should all wait to start playing until at least half our life span had passed.......time to develop character, thus light speed progress.

we know, to the contrary, Sierra, Chris, Jo Jo, countless Suzuki method kids, and countless other masters in fact started so young as to have.......well, presumably little life experience as children, but possibly great innate character??????

I look back on my own time with guitar, mando, and very recently, banjo. Being no master, but recalling how I discovered sounds.
Let's assume I have no character, to make things simple.


One must sit with an instrument, for hours, and get to know it, make it an extension, to make it sing.

So, regardless of "character" ( I believe everyone has it, and we're all different, unique, and sometimes, all very similar) this alone will not morph/ translate in instrumental communication without ...........practice.

Character or not aside, there IS a physical skill required to being able to utilize the instrument.
even mindless midi demonstrates a recognizable, smooth rendition or songs.

not so much the dude or girl who...sigs, stops, restarts, "no wait ill get it"

Ever heard those guys that can make a guitar or banjo, etc., mimic a human voice, ie, with certain pitch inflections? That is the example im thinking about. It takes some practice and subtlety to be able to execute this.

ditto nice clean timing, chords, single string work, etc.



Character, not so much.

shall we ever hear from TEF again????
shall we ever learn TEF's thoughts on the topic?
TEF who in GAAWDS name suggests that being well rounded results in faster musical progression?

[Bren]

Yeah, you shouldn't be able to sing a murder ballad unless you've committed at least, say, three murders.

There's a great book called "Faking It: The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music" by Barker and Taylor that explores some of the stuff discussed in this thread, going from the earliest recorded music on to the present. Musicians and marketers have carefully cultivated 'authentic' images to sell recordings and show tickets for a really long time- it's weird that we hold middle-class folkies' feet to the fire over it when the last century of music has been more or less a pose.

Oh yeah, authenticity's important.

Like the man said, if you can fake that, you've got it made.

I'm not holding anybody's feet to the fire but I do like enough - erm, lack of tweeness - to be able to suspend disbelief.

[sbhikes]

In the realm of language, do we practice our helping verbs? Do we drill the correct pronunciation of through, though, cough, bone, one, gone, etc.? When do we really practice our use of nouns and verbs? Well, we know the answer, after actually learning how to speak! I think it was after 7 or 8 years of speaking that such thoughts even appear in elementary school. Heck, it may have been 7th grade before I even knew what a helping verb meant - not that I hadn't used them.

So, my vote is, "learn to communicate first." Just play! After 10,000 hours, you'll have the skills necessary to steer towards a specialized area of music, advanced theoretical concepts and the like. It's premature to give somebody a mandolin and start right off the bat with advanced theoretical concepts.

Just a few thoughts. . .

f-d

It's weird but that's how I learned to write computer code. I started out by reading it and tweaking it here and there, then on to writing it. At first I didn't really understand what I was doing but after a while I did, but I lacked the words to explain it. A lot of it really is like language. You don't really know how to explain why you have to use helping verbs (or "->" in this programming language or "." in that one to do the same thing), but you know to use them. Probably the same goes for folk music, both in how to play an instrument (see Vesta Johnson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rxQscqEQHA) and in how you somehow know how to accent the music correctly and get the right sound, timing, etc.

I think you get a kind of native-speaker type of knowledge by playing first and thinking later (if ever). On the other hand, people who learn more formally have a lot of theory and terminology and they know how to read the dots and play stuff they've never heard from the dots. Sorta like how when you take foreign language in school you learn a whole lot about grammar you never even knew about English.

Having done both kinds of learning I can definitely say that the play first, think later (if ever) form produces better results for me.

[Jeff Mando]

But they're peculiar enough or talented enough that they can overcome the disadvantage of advantage.

Made me chuckle, but very well put, IMHO. Where I grew up, I didn't know any "trust fund kids" or even know what a trust fund was for that matter. When I began playing music professionally and touring with a band, it seemed I met a lot of trust fund kids. I always wondered how a struggling musician could afford to live in NYC or San Francisco with no job other than playing music -- BINGO -- trust fund kid! But, like ya say, "even with" that advantage, some were quite talented people........

[Tate Ferguson]

Thanks again, MC folk, for all the excellent thinking and writing.

Me, I play better on a day when I haven't acted like a jerk - this still sometimes happens, even at age 64, regrettably. When there's no nagging guilt or angst, the music flows freely.

So for me, the quality of my inner soul, or character, or whatever you may call it, positively impacts the quality of my musical output. More important than practice, no - but I practice more effectively when I'm feeling good, i.e. no guilt for poor-quality life decisions.

[Dave Martin]

[QUOTE=SincereCorgi;1589943]Yeah, you shouldn't be able to sing a murder ballad unless you've committed at least, say, three murders.

Or been hanged while she stood in the crowd, or driven from Tuscon to Tucumcari, or had a girl that lived on rocky top, or ... there could be quite a list, but I have procrastinated practice long enough goofing off

Practice doesn't have to be just scales, though, IMHO, but noodling is clearly not usually as productive as something with focus. Song ideas do pop out though sometimes when noodling.

[Gelsenbury]

I was thinking about the "light" version of this argument recently. There are players who are technically brilliant but struggle to make a tune sound like anything else than an exercise. There are players who emotionally connect with the music but lack the skill to express what they want. The ones who have worked on both and achieved excellence in both are the ones we enjoy the most.

The only other point I'd like to add: I do agree that each piece of music has a character of its own. That's how music can stir, or calm, our emotions. And that's why playing a slow air in zydeco style sounds funny. But there's always an act of interpretation and subjectivity involved in deciding how a piece "wants" to be played. That's why, in the Song-a-week group, for example, we can see several different but equally valid interpretations of the same material.

[red7flag]

When my life has been substantially changed, death of my mother for example, tunes just seem to be in the instrument I am playing. All I need to do is be in touch with the feelings and in touch with the instrument. Those naked times allow the soul to pour out or maybe the instrument to pour in, not sure which. The instrument is like a medium. At those times, I am not thinking of writing a tune, just playing loosely and the new tune is there with all the feeling wrapped up. Not sure if I am expressing this well.

[fatt-dad]

Playing chestnuts with a metronome. That's practice!

No joke! I turned on my metronome last night and found all sorts of new stuff to work on - even on the tunes, "I already know!"

f-d

[Mark Gunter]

Wow, this thing is still a-l-i-ve! Must be a lot of fun here, I had stopped following this, but the last couple pages are still as interesting as the first few were.

"Commit at least three murders" :))

To the original question, or rather the title, "Character over practice?" doesn't make any more sense to me than asking "Ice cream over automobiles" or "Tying your shoes vs. changing your strings". It's all good.

[mtm]

It seems to me that creativity is limited by the ability to express it.

I think I have creativity ... I just can't express it. Practice ..........