Where does technique end, and music begin?

[urb]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1316772' date='Jul 26 2011, 10:59 AM']This is interesting Mike, I always marvel at some artist's ability to convey a message which seems to speak to a history that chimes with my core, in most cases it's singer songwriters that reach me in this way, eg Joni Mitchell, Carole King, Rickie Lee Jones, James Taylor, Paul Simon, Sting, even Elton John (although his performance doesn't groove me as much) Having said that I am also reached by the likes of Bach, Beethoven and the great song writers of the American song book and many things between.
My stock saying when asked by people "what are you into" is always "good music" beyond that there are those special ones that just seem to be able to convey something that is speaking about the stuff from which we are made down through our evolution.[/quote]

I agree Jake - even though I'm a 'jazz' person/listener/expert - my actual music taste extremely broad - I can get lost in an epic pop tune just as much as the next person, but like I said the properties of what makes something 'good' are quite vague, which in the context of the OP is why the whole concept of 'technique' and indeed 'music' a really hard one to pin down. You could take this idea further and say "where does studio technique end and the purity of the actual song/performance begin...?" - I try not to get wrapped up in the whys and wherefores of this - and or questions of physical technique of an artist - I think if the production enhances the performance then that was a concious decision by the artist and those they chose to work with - that reflects well on them as to show their awareness of the finer points of how an audience 'hears' their work via the radio/internet/TV - there are myriad filters through which we encounter music - yet overall I know a good song or piece of music when I hear it - I'm not thinking about technique or anything to do with how that music is made, it just grabs me and I respond to it. To have great technique is purely to be fluent in communication - the art of communication is another question altogether

[lanark]

[quote name='Skol303' post='1316794' date='Jul 26 2011, 11:17 AM']Anyway, this is deep. I'm doing my thinkers pose right now (arm bent, fist on forehead, looking serious).[/quote]


Life ... it's the name of the game, and I wanna play the game with you.

[Bilbo]

An interesting debate. I think there is an interesting tension between the idea of the art and craft of music, the art and craft of entertainment and the complex dynamics of genre and the market. It is perfectly possible to have a career as a 'musician' without any significant technique (e.g. Adam Clayton) and to have great technique and little or no market for what you do. In simple terms, technique stops and music begins when the artist/performer does not have to seek the means to execute his or her ideas but has them at her or his fingertips. I guess this means different things to different people and a metal bassist a la Cliff Williams will have no strong ambition to excel 'tedhnically' whereas Jeff Berlin will define his development by this aspect of his playing. Horses for courses. The fact is, the overarching 'market' that is music has no baseline (sic) for competence. If you can hold a bass in a video, that'a all that is required for some producers. Others (Becker & Fagan?)look for something that is much harder to define.

[Skol303]

[quote name='lanark' post='1316836' date='Jul 26 2011, 11:46 AM']Life ... it's the name of the game, and I wanna play the game with you. [/quote]

Ha ha "Nice to see you, to see you nice!"

[johnny_frog]

"An interesting debate. I think there is an interesting tension between the idea of the art and craft of music, the art and craft of entertainment and the complex dynamics of genre and the market. It is perfectly possible to have a career as a 'musician' without any significant technique (e.g. Adam Clayton) and to have great technique and little or no market for what you do. In simple terms, technique stops and music begins when the artist/performer does not have to seek the means to execute his or her ideas but has them at her or his fingertips. I guess this means different things to different people and a metal bassist a la Cliff Williams will have no strong ambition to excel 'tedhnically' whereas Jeff Berlin will define his development by this aspect of his playing. Horses for courses. The fact is, the overarching 'market' that is music has no baseline (sic) for competence. If you can hold a bass in a video, that'a all that is required for some producers. Others (Becker & Fagan?)look for something that is much harder to define."

Maybe it depends on how you term "music".
If it means something that elisits a strong emotional response in the listener then perhaps "technique" to an extent doesn't matter a monkey's...

For me personally, Jaco has never moved me...
I can appreciate the skill, musicality and technique etc. etc. but listening to Weather Report has never done it for me...

However, the chugging open E as Mr Williams comes into the chorus of Highway to Hell has my spine tingling and the rest of me jumping around all over the place.

Everyone will have a different view... that's what makes the world the wonderful vibrant place it is

[topo morto]

Some people seem to appreciate technique as much as - or more than- music. Or at least they feel they should!

I 've had so many conversaitions with my dad where he's played me something, I've not really enjoyed it (but said nothing of course) and he's said 'but can't you hear how difficult it it? can't you hear the skill'? - which of course I could, but to him there should be some link between that skill level and enjoying the music.

At my old school books called things like 'how to appreciate music' - reminded me of the book that got torn up in 'Dead Poet's Society'...

[algmusic]

[quote name='Bigwan' post='1316795' date='Jul 26 2011, 11:17 AM']As far as I'm concerned there's zero crossover between the two. I've heard people who can't play a note one day write amazing songs the next, whereas we've all seen people who've woodshedded for 20 years, and may have amazing technique, but you couldn't make me listen to them if you paid me...[/quote]


Just because someone has practice for 20 years, it doesn't mean they have good understanding of technique to know that have missed it. I would say i'm much more 'trained in drums' as I can easily spot what is holding a drummer back in form of their playing. You cab hear it, then when you look, you may see their hand is not placed quite right or than ae holding their sticks too tight. A good teacher can sort that, assuming they are not just useless.. on Bass I am more creative, but I always add learning new technique to my art in the same way I do in drums.. then I can play music.. I think teachers should teach this link much more.. you would end up with far better players in the world..

Bottomline, for true freedom, you always need technique to move you along.. then the technique is used as a tool to create music and not crutch..

[Commando Jack]

For me the two terms are descriptors for different aspects of the same thing - making sounds with a given instrument. Pure technique is a mechanical description, whereas pure music is emotional. I disagree with the above post that says there is no cross-over, but that may be because our definitions of each term is slightly different.

An example of the crossover is to pick an exercise out of a guitar book. In isolation it is just technique and is unlikely to evoke any kind of emotional response. Now if you play the exact same exercise over a backing track, are you just increasing the effectiveness of the technique by playing it in a context, or are you playing a song? Both? What if you now go on a stage and play the exact same thing and a listener has an emotional response to it? Does that make it art? At the bottom line the thing that you played would still be just a technical exercise at it's heart after all. Is the observation what makes it music?

I would also like to point out that I'm pretty sure there is a difference between what defines music and [i]good[/i] music, and I have tried to separate the two in my reply by only talking about the former

[retrohelix]

[Ross]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1316651' date='Jul 26 2011, 09:26 AM']just for balance...
I know loads [/quote]
I need to meet more of these horn players, I love jamming with brass.

[Doddy]

[quote name='Ross' post='1317311' date='Jul 26 2011, 04:57 PM']I need to meet more of these horn players, I love jamming with brass.[/quote]

Go play some jazz...there are tons of improvising horn players there.

[risingson]

You don't need technique to be musically minded. John Lennon said "I'm an artist, and if you give me a tuba, I'll bring you something out of it".

[TheGreek]

There have been some excellent replies in this thread - my fellow BCers never fail to inspire me...

My analogy??: Technique is the paint - music is the painting...

You need the technique to create the music, without technique the music is little more than mush..remember when you had no technique? The music was without passion and feel..it lacks definition or style. Having mastered the technique you are able to express yourself to make the music you feel and give it the passion it deserves. YOUR technique is what makes the music yours!!

There is a reference to Titian - both he and Van Gogh had different techniques so produced different art - Victor's technique is different to John Paul Jones' hence they create different music..

Technique is a tool, knowing how to use those tools is how you create music.

[lojo]

Music surely begins as soon as a tune appears in the airwaves, and if its by an I can only play what I read trained player or someone with no theory who can make a tune out of anything, its still music

You can of course debate the talents and knowledge of each person behind the music, and how well they deliver a pre written piece, and if you indeed like the piece at all

Id guess even a child playing random notes on a keyboard is producing music the moment they repeat phrase of 2 or more notes because they like how it sounded

Edited July 26, 2011 by lojo

[Ross]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1317313' date='Jul 26 2011, 04:59 PM']Go play some jazz...there are tons of improvising horn players there.[/quote]
Trouble is the majority of brass players I play with are into classical and thats about it... Need to find me some Jazz people.

[algmusic]

[quote name='risingson' post='1317361' date='Jul 26 2011, 05:27 PM']You don't need technique to be musically minded. John Lennon said "I'm an artist, and if you give me a tuba, I'll bring you something out of it".[/quote]

but you'll be limited by your technical ability to play what you want at some point.. it's why we practice

[Blademan_98]

[quote name='lojo' post='1317430' date='Jul 26 2011, 06:27 PM']Id guess even a child playing random notes on a keyboard is producing music the moment they repeat phrase of 2 or more notes because they like how it sounded[/quote]

This is what I meant by my first post.

It was music to our ears when we jammed as a family.

It made us smile and then lol when we played back the recording.

It made the grand parents smile when they heard it

Someone bashing out electro pop call it music but I don't like listening to it.

Each to their own, music is what you make of it. You don't need a lot of technique to make music

[xilddx]

I think technique is an external thing that we internalise, and our music is an internal thing that we externalise.

There must be some collision somewhere inside the mind where some of the learned technique is turned into music and externalised without consciously thinking about it; some of the technique is unused and lost, perhaps to come out in a new form later; and some comes back out as unmusical technique since it represents no real collision.

I also think external music is internalised and has a collision with our 'inner' music and goes through the same cycles as technique does. I suppose we also have an 'inner' technique to some degree too.

I think the question in the OP is how do you recognise what you externalise as technique or a true reflection of your 'inner' music? And if it IS a true reflection of your 'inner' music, does that make it more compelling to its audience (whomever that might be) than a regurgitation of technique.

What prompts my question is that I watched that Hadrian Feraud solo vid in another thread (before going to rehearsal) and thought the very fast stuff was fairly unmusical and mostly technique, however the way he got out of those sections and back into the rhythm was extremely musical and very compelling. In mid-rehearsal, we were about to work on a new number when I thought I would play with a pick. Because I am WAY better with a pick than with fingers, I found myself to be way more expressive and colourful, and had a few magic moments. One in particular was when our new drummer and I both improvised a half-bar 16th note fill at exactly the same time without looking at eachother, or ever having played the song before, the drummer hadn't even HEARD the song before. We were clearly both getting the same reaction to the feeling and dynamic of the song. I don't even know if he noticed, but it WAS music

[risingson]

[quote name='algmusic' post='1317452' date='Jul 26 2011, 06:48 PM']but you'll be limited by your technical ability to play what you want at some point.. it's why we practice[/quote]

Of course, but you don't need brilliant technical skills as a musician to get across your point. Just look at David Bowie. Good technique is enough. Brilliant technique is great but past a point it detracts the focus away from the music and all of a sudden a night at the theatre becomes a night at the circus.

[risingson]

[quote name='algmusic' post='1317452' date='Jul 26 2011, 06:48 PM']but you'll be limited by your technical ability to play what you want at some point.. it's why we practice[/quote]

Of course, but you don't need brilliant technical skills as a musician to get across your point. Just look at David Bowie. Good technique is enough. Brilliant technique is great but past a point it detracts the focus away from the music and all of a sudden what could have been a nice night at the theatre becomes a night at the circus.

[scalpy]

As with any art, it is better when the artist has something to say, and says it eloquently, with genuine sentiment. Sometimes that requires a sophisticated technique, a lot of the time it doesn't.

[Wil]

The best musicians can make you weep with one note - it has to be the right note, played in the right place, the right time and with the right feel, of course.

[Pete Academy]

In any art form it's possible to be creative with the minimum of resources. An artist can be creative with just a pencil. But the more resources you have to hand, the more you can explore the possibilities.

If you only know the blues scale, it doesn't stop you writing great riffs. But you are still limited.

Once you get into techniques like slap and tap, it opens up far more avenues. But these obviously get overused, as we have seen on past threads and Youtube clips.

I think Victor Wooten has it nailed. He likens music to vocabulary. The more words you know, the broader your vocabulary. But then again, it's how you use those words. Hemingway's work used a limited vocabulary, but his writing was still amazing.

Whatever you know and don't know, it's all about how you use it.

Does this make sense?

Edited July 26, 2011 by Pete Academy

[xilddx]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1317538' date='Jul 26 2011, 07:45 PM']In any art form it's possible to be creative with the minimum of resources. An artist can be creative with just a pencil. But the more resources you have to hand, the more you can explore the possibilities.

If you only know the blues scale, it doesn't stop you writing great riffs. But you are still limited.

Once you get into techniques like slap and tap, it opens up far more avenues. But these obviously get overused, as we have seen on past threads and Youtube clips.

I think Victor Wooten has it nailed. He likens music to vocabulary. The more words you know, the broader your vocabulary. But then again, it's how you use those words. Hemingway's work used a limited vocabulary, but his writing was still amazing.

[b]Whatever you know and don't know, it's all about how you use it.[/b]

Does this make sense? [/quote]

I think we'd all agree, but how do you know when you have used it as a reflection of yourself?

[steve-bbb]

[quote name='silddx' post='1316622' date='Jul 26 2011, 09:06 AM']Serious question.[/quote]

for some there issues wonderful music with complete indfference to technique

for some technique never ends and music never really begins


the two are rarely interdependent - there has been some great music by bands with very questionable musical technique and conversely there has been some highly technically proficient widdlers producing ..... well.... just plain widdle