|
Simon T
Posts: 6053
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 14:57 |
I've been thinking about this on my blog and I wondered what others thought. Can we do without one or other?
http://simonthoumire.vox.com/ |
Onny
Posts: 12843
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 15:00 |
| Do you mean can we do without thinking or can we do without your blog? |
JAJ
Posts: 10021
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 15:26 |
Both, it would appear. :-)
Anyway, I'm glad that Simon doesn't believe that "(virtuoso)technique" is everything.
[comments in parenthesis mine]
However, it's still obvious that his opinion is that of a professional and highly accomplished musician
He says..
"My bug bear is that a lot of musicians do not work hard enough at their instrument and end up in middle ground - being good enough to do most things but not of sufficient practice to try anything new. I would like to hear many more trad musicians capable of being soloists. They do not have to go down this road - as playing in a group can be the best fun - but they should be practised enough to step up to the mark if called upon. "
Surely, musicians are entitled to work as hard as they like? If they wish to take a professional route and maximise their potential then, of course, they ought to practise extensively and work hard at their instrument.
However, if they just wish to "enjoy their music" then why not let them? If you don't appreciate their style or approach to music or their current level, just leave them be to do their own thing.
Of course, there's no reason why an amateur (Or non professional...probably a better description)musician shouldn't practise really hard either and strive for perfection. However, he/she might not have the same opportunities, spare time, the necessary finance, musical education etc. So, let's not unduly criticise those who don't progress as much as others.
Unless we are suggesting that traditional music is only for an elite, of course? |
Simon T
Posts: 6053
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 15:39 |
| I would agree John. I suppose I'm wondering if the main ingredient of trad music is 'feel' and technique is just an add on - no matter how much I like it! |
JAJ
Posts: 10021
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 15:59 |
"Feel" (although "Conyach" is a better term) is all important in traditional music.
Good technique can enhance this, of course, but many great performers can have little or no musical education or training and often very limited skills on their chosen instrument and still sound outstanding.
Of course, most of us have more or less of each with varying results. :-) |
Simon Chadwick
Posts: 245
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 16:17 |
| Conversely one can have bucketloads of technique and miss the feel altogether. I agree with the blog thoughts Simon but also with John J that humming out of tune in the pub toilets is just as much music as being 'the most talked about leading light of their generation and the finest Scotland has ever produced' to quote another thread... |
Bren
Posts: 54
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 16:31 |
Those gifted musicians with great feel and individual approach who also work their socks off and improve their technique are the ones we are happy to pay to go to see, and buy their recordings.
If everyone reached that standard then would we still pay or even cross the road to see them?
Be careful what you wish for . |
Scott-
Posts: 637
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 16:51 |
I've often come across trad. musicians who claim to have been 'classically trained' as if this is a good selling point. More often than not the "Feel" is missing.
"Technique" is important though but it has to be the correct technique for the music. |
Stoosh
Posts: 504
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 17:04 |
You can't beat a good feel.
I mean that in both senses!
|
PICKIT
Posts: 6
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 18:23 |
| My view is that technique is feel, and vice versa. To paraphrase John Williams, technique is the realisation of the concept of the music - in other words getting the sound that's in your head out into actual sound. I think there's an important distinction between technique and technical facility: you need to work on the latter only as far as the former dictates. So the musicians "with limited skills "mentioned above who sound great do indeed have great technique - you can't have one without the other. And the classically trained musicians who play without "feel" either don't "hear" the music internally in the right way, or if the do, they don't have the skills to realise it. It's the fingers or the breath or the lips etc that make the sound, not the head or the heart. |
domhnull
Posts: 510
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 20:31 |
I remember hearing Alasdair Fraser answering a question put to him by Jimmie McGregor ('how do you cope with all the different fiddle techniques.....?')
He replied, 'There are lots of styles; one technique. The trick is in adapting the technique to suit the style.
The same is true in singing. There's nothing 'clever' or 'elitist' about intelligent voice-production. 'Technique' has no intrinsic value; it's a means to an end. The intelligent performer understands that and adapts accordingly. Virtuosity and artistry are not necessarily synonymous!
|
Viper
Posts: 448
|
Posted:
13 Jul 2007 at 22:51 |
| I have a feeling that folk music without feel is not folk music at all. |
Tattie Bogle
Posts: 2177
|
Posted:
14 Jul 2007 at 12:55 |
| "More often than not the "Feel" is missing". Well the Proms season has just started, and there was plenty of "feel" to last night's rendition of the Elgar 'cello concerto. It took me back to being able to see Jacqueline du Pre play it in London in the 60's: she had so much "feel" it was tangible and set the pulse racing. |
highlandsinger
Posts: 286
|
Posted:
14 Jul 2007 at 22:22 |
Really great musicians in the folk/trad field have both - or at least enough technique to enable them to give the feel life.
For professionals, you need that, for play-at-homes the emphasis is more on the feel, surely?
This reminds me of Margaret Stewart's comments about 'non-native' Gaelic singers who record sub-standard Gaelic, but when pushed she sort of amended her comments to refer to 'not-as-fluent-as-a-native' Gaelic singers.
There is a parallel - get the basics right first, to enable you then to go on and do something with it. If you don't want to put the effort in to get to that standard, fine, but then carry on for your own, informal enjoyment, don't pretend to be a professional standard and take people's money... |
Jack Campin
Posts: 1129
|
Posted:
14 Jul 2007 at 23:12 |
That last comment is completely off the wall.
Sheila Stewart is a technically crap singer by even the most basic standard, and says as much herself. What she has got is deep knowledge and passion for what she's singing about, and I'd *far* rather pay to hear her displaying that than to hear some technically perfect performer with a commitment to nothing higher than their own career. |
AndrewFiddler
Posts: 112
|
Posted:
15 Jul 2007 at 01:37 |
| Removed by me. |
AndrewFiddler
Posts: 112
|
Posted:
15 Jul 2007 at 02:01 |
I think the the two things go together. Technique is a means of delivering your music. That is an important thing; especially when you are sat on a stage with nerves affecting you. The technique and the practise get you through that.
However without feel you won't deliver anything with your music. At the end of the day people listen to you because your music is honest. It connects with them and says something to them. That is something you cannot analyse. |
highlandsinger
Posts: 286
|
Posted:
15 Jul 2007 at 22:03 |
Oooh, I've never been described as off the wall before!
Perhaps Andrewfiddler put it better than me, writing "Technique is a means of delivering your music." That's sort of what I mean.
I don't agree that "Sheila Stewart is a technically crap singer" - but then, I suppose that's because I think she really can deliver what she intends to deliver and her technique, though not trained, has its own place. |
|
|