|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 8, 2016 7:27:36 GMT
To add to the debate, I think that good technique can be defined as what the individual needs to be able to express themselves musically. The acoustic guitar has a massive range of colours and tones, without knowing how to release those through good technique, the player is limited regarding his/her musical vocabulary... which is probably a good way of describing it: you can get your point across if you have a basic understanding in a foreign language, if you are reaching towards fluency, you can create poetry. Going back to the thread title... it is interesting that some great musicians have said that they play on the edge, which often means for them to express their musicality they make mistakes, but don't care as the overall musicality is more important. Jonny Missed seeing this post when I did my post above. Good definition of good technique Jonny. Too often technique seems to be looked on and taught as a cold precise science and often geared up to very fast tempo. I fear I find the faster music becomes the less expressive it is to me. Your definition leaves the door open for expressiveness without needing an encyclopaedic knowledge and mastery of many technical skills. Unfortunately technique and expressiveness are both always in the eye of the beholder so there will always be a wide ranging discussion on the virtues or lack thereof of various musicians. On the plus side this forum allows that without warfare breaking out. I can't comment properly on the poetry analogy I'm afraid as that is an art form that very rarely moves me at all - usually 'cos I'm too dumb to understand it. Mark PS - If Phil has terrible technique what chance for me .... I'd better give up guitar today! Who just said "hooray"!?
|
|
Andy P
C.O.G.
Posts: 4,982
My main instrument is: Taylor 312ce, Guild D25, Deering 5 string banjo
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"8e2be1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 060607
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0b0b0c
|
Post by Andy P on Apr 8, 2016 13:50:51 GMT
Really?? I think he has tremendous musicality. Not only in the way he performs his own tunes, but in his ability to improvise when accompanying another guitarist or singer. I find his natural understanding, interpretation and application of scales quite astonishing at times. Yeap I agree. I also get why people dislike him. He does like to perform, and often clips show him going 1000000 miles an hour as possibly its the the thing that makes him stand out. That said he really can hold a tune and I like him best when with someone that can reign him in a little. I particularly liked him when he played with Chet. You're dead right. I used to love his shows but went off him somewhat when he started to spoil his own tunes by playing them too fast, just because he could it seemed to me. And yes, he's taken showmanship a stage too far! But a phenomenal musician nevertheless.
|
|
missclarktree
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,423
My main instrument is: It varies
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"1979e6"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 100605
Mini-Profile Text Color: 020a12
|
Post by missclarktree on Apr 8, 2016 18:40:25 GMT
This discussion, I think is especially apt for the classical guitar field - I'm not saying there are a lot of pros who don't have the technique - just the reverse - but it's certainly possible to go to a classical guitar concert and more often than not I wonder when it's going to finish Technical perfection and a poker face seem to be the norm, at least in the concerts I've been to recently. On the other hand at the weekend I went to see this guy and was more than pleasantly surprised to find he gave a fantastic and emotive performance (which was technically excellent) that was enthralling to watch and listen to. For those of you who are interested, he plays antique (Segovia style) guitars and is currently playing without nails, though not the case in this video. So I agree with the opinions the majority have expressed - conveying emotion/musicality is key, providing you have enough technique to carry it off This is probably my all-time favourite 'tune', and I'm so addicted to John Williams' interpretation that I can't really listen to any others, which is ridiculous. I love the way JW plays the bit from around 4 - 5.40. Totally gripping, and this guy doesn't quite do it. Having said that, if JW scores 100% I'd give him 97%.
|
|
|
Post by bellyshere on Apr 10, 2016 8:48:30 GMT
As much as i am impressed by the super talented guitar players and often think i wish i could do that, give me feeling every time.
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Apr 10, 2016 14:33:26 GMT
Absolutely Martin. Being able to play as a singer would sing it is a good plan. Taking pauses where a singer would take a breath. Expression by way of variations of dynamics and tempo. But put "unusual timing and swoops and curves" into your playing in lessons geared up to exam passing with rigid technique and it's an abomination in the eyes of the master. I think that's where technique gets a bum rap - too many people, including teachers, use it in a very rigid uncompromising way. Technique should allow for expression, unusual timing and swoops and curves. Then again one man's swoops and curves and expression is another mans bad technique and covering up inadequacies. Just look at any thread about Segovia on a classical guitar forum and watch the warfare unfold. Mark Good points. It's a bit like the importance of phrasing with vocals. Spacing is one of the most important things I find. Leaving space adds depth to a performance. With steel strings you need to watch faster stuff as there is temptation to play too many notes. On listening back you often find a kind of fog of blurred notes. When this happens to me I will slow the arrangement down quite considerably and think about the fingers simply filling space because it is easy to (if that makes sense). Years ago now,it was Martin Simpson that rally impressed me with a "play less" notes philosophy. Ironically, I saw him come a cropper with this a month or so ago. It was his first gig of the year. On before him was a really good young blues player. Simpson went for it a bit faster and a bit more intricate than usual — a competitive edge I felt! It was still a great evening but some tunes he played I didn't like as much as usual because there just seemed to be too much going on. He played a version of a Chris Wood song that I also play sometimes. This time it was too fiddly, so much so that I preferred my own more modest efforts! Maybe, that first gig means a bit of rust, even for someone like him!
|
|
walkingdecay
C.O.G.
Posts: 1,676
My main instrument is: brownish and rather small.
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000000"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: {"image":"","color":"ffffff"}
|
Post by walkingdecay on Apr 11, 2016 12:00:54 GMT
For me the question is unanswerable because responses to art are always subjective. To compare the playing of Bo Diddley to that of, say, John Petrucci is as unfair as comparing Three Blind Mice to Louis MacNeice's Bagpipe Music, or a native Australian's rock drawing to Rembrandt's Night Watch. All of those things have power which is as dependent on who is experiencing them as on who made them. I will say, however, that technique by itself is not enough, that individual artistry is crucial. Art is in large measure about nuance, filtered through the particular psychology and physiology of the artist. It can also be as much a product of environment and exposure to other artists as of discipline, practice and the narrowing of perspectives into genres and sub-genres. In books on The Beatles much is made of how little rock & roll was played on the BBC's Light Programme, as if its attempts to cater for the broadest tastes of the public were a bad thing for them. I'd contend that The Fabs wouldn't have become the artists they were if they hadn't heard the stylings of Henry Hall and George Formby and everything from The Magic Flute to Rodgers and Hart alongside the occasional Buddy Holly offering on there, or hadn't had the opportunity to absorb their city's soundtrack of country, Irish and jazz for that matter. (Link to the script of a talk on The Beatles and the Beeb I did for the other Gerry Anderson in the '90s, just because it's there: Beatles at the BBC) Lack of individual interpretation can even kill a piece. I once said to a mate that I didn't need to hear Vivaldi's Four Seasons ever again, that it had become as over-familiar as the old pictures on the wall that you eventually stop noticing. He responded with, "Ah, but have you heard the version by Kenneth Sillito?" and put it on for me. Sillito's take turned out to be fresh and crisp, disclosing moments in the music that I'd never noticed before. I still don't get off on most of the countless identikit takes on that or any other over-exposed pieces by the similarly countless technically proficient musicians churned out by conservatories each year, but I realise I should be giving them a hearing, just in case. Should be... Regarding technique as a tool to facilitate expression I'm with Jonny part of the way, but I think that some artists only need to develop as far as they feel the need to. Look at Neil Young: not the most technically proficient guitarist by any means, but through tonal ranges from silver moon acoustics to apocalyptic feedback his very being seems to be made apparent at times. I also believe that in certain cases acquisition of technique can even rather overwhelm some of the vitality in an artist's playing. I admire the heck out of banjo player Bela Fleck and treasure two of his early albums, Drive and Inroads - but I've enjoyed little I've heard from him since, if I'm honest. Yes, he continues to acquires and hone the killer technique, but for me he's lost something in the process of displaying it. On the album he did with Chick Corea his runs and timing were dazzling, but I found myself only really enjoying the bits where he laid back and Chick was playing, even the bits where Chick was picking up and directly reflecting his playing. But then, that's me. You might hear it differently.
|
|