Who cares about guitar technique?

[Charlie]

My second cousin Lev Fruchter teaches high school kids in Brooklyn.

With his permission, I've excerpted this intriguing observation from a recent email:

-------------------

I try to keep my mind open to what my students are listening to. I gave them a spreadsheet project in which they identified "The Elements of Music" and then analyzed their own tastes.

Interestingly, not one student, not even the accomplished guitarist, singled out instrumental technique or virtuosity as something to savor in music. It was all "beat", "rhythm", "lyrics", "vocals", "relates to me", "emotion" and a few other things, but nothing about actual skill or expressiveness with an instrument. I had to explain the concept of enjoying a musician's talent for producing a sound from an instrument. I wasn't trying to educate them -- I hardly think I have anything to teach these black/latino/Caribbean kids about music; they come from much more musical families/environments than I do. I was just astounded that none of them relished this element. I tried to get the idea across with some air-guitar. They looked at me as if I had two heads.

[judith]

First off, I was surprised that your cousin came to that realization. He has the thought process of a musician. Is he a music teacher or does he play an instrument himself?

This is really interesting and the more I think about it, the more multilayered and difficult it is to assess. Part of it could be cultural, certainly. And part could be the age of the students, what they are exposed to. Very little of commercially available music today contains musical solos, and from what I've seen of televised pop concerts, hardly ever is a musician up front, center stage - singers are and the students did mention 'vocals'. That isn't to say your cousin, Lev Fruchter's students are all into pop music. They also mentioned 'rhythm' and I highly doubt that mechanized beats are all they are exposed to. Ha! I just now remembered what used to be referred to as 'Individual Humanism eg: as in education - when we started recognizing and appreciating individual skills such as artwork named and signed by the artist, songs by their composers, inventors for their theories, and schools for other than monks back in the 1400's or so. Interesting with world situations rivaling the dark ages that certain personal expressions of individual excellence are also absent. Excuse me, that's a bit tangential and pessimistic and I'm always optimistic as long as people like Lev Fruchter cares enough to notice about guitar technique discusses it with the young.

[Gordon Neill]

It would be easy to overstate it, and there are certainly times when I marvel at a piece of musical dexterity. But overall I'm with the students, at least when it comes to listening to recorded music.

Seeing a musician live is something else and it can be impossible not to marvel at a Bassekou Kouyate or a Boban Markovic. But when it comes to listening to records, I'm really not much interested in technique. It's the song not the singer, for me, the music not the musician. For me, the ultimate in musicianship is when you're barely aware of them, when the gap between me and the song is minimised and I can lose myself in the rhythm, the feel, the emotion of it all.

I dare say this reflects the fact that I'm not a musician (having a wide range of basic guitar chords doesn't really count, does it?). Generally, I wouldn't know if a musician was technically brilliant or mediocre. But I would know if I was bored. I'm in interested in the big picture, the song, not the individual bits of the jigsaw. Instrumental virtuosity is a means to an end, but not an end in itself.

Actually, even that's not quite right. I do marvel at voices (which arguably are simply the ultimate instruments). And I'm no singer. Listening to a Mariza or an Aretha, I'm constantly aware of their tone and phrasing. But not their technique. As soon as I become aware of vocal technique, my ears fold over and close.

[Hugh Weldon]

I think you can admire 'skill and expressiveness' without being over analytic about it. It helps to play, or have tried to play, an instrument yourself. It helps to have had some early exposure to jazz and guitar heroes, with the soloist at the centre of things. But if you haven't been exposed to any of that...

As a teacher not quite sure what I'd do next. Bring in my guitar, show them my very basic strumalong ting, then blast them (hopefully) with some Django or some Hendrix. Bring in a sax, challenge them to get some notes out of it, then play some Coltrane or something.

[Adam Blake]

In all modern "talent shows" on television there are only people who can sing or dance. As most young audiences have been brought up on these programmes it's hardly surprising that they have no concept of instrumental prowess. Indeed, this idea is completely outside the modern concept of how music is made (not that anybody stops to wonder about such things). Many of my young students have absolutely no concept of the work and commitment involved in learning to play an instrument. The disappointment on their faces when it becomes clear that I can't seem to wave a magic wand and have them making a noise like the one they hear when they play the "Guitar Hero" computer game is palpable. Gordon, you are the perfect modern consumer in this regard: the hell with the twenty odd years someone has spent learning to play their instrument - that's just elitist shit, what matters is how YOU feel. Thank God some people still listen to and enjoy jazz. Oh well, I'm off now to practise my scales...

[Neil Foxlee]

As a non-player and therefore lacking first-hand experience in these matters, I would nevertheless venture the opinion that technique is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Three examples:

1. vocal 'oversouling';

2. Chuck Berry, of whom some clever dick said 'anyone could play like that';

3. Art Tatum, whose technique was absolutely dazzling, but whose most satisfying work was in ensembles where he wasn't the focus of attention.

Technique is indispensable, but less (not less technique, but less ostentatious technique) can often be more - though obviously that is a technique in itself, and like the basics, has to be learnt.

That said, practice makes perfect (to coin a cliche).

[Brooklev]

Thanks for this treasure trove of insight. I'm not a musician, but my joy in accomplished stretches of guitar, trumpet, conga, tabla and many other instruments always includes some kind of imagination of their being played. This fuses simultaneously with the actual sound and produces in me a (completely ignorant) strumming of the fingers, pursing of the lips, beating of the hands, some clumsy mockery the actual physical skill. I suppose this is some kind of synesthesia, but I couldn't say whether it's due to personality, generation (I'm 42) or something else. I never singled it out amongst my reactions to music until not a one of these 17 and 18 year olds mentioned anything similar. It's perversely warming that such "instrumental" reactions make bedfellows of jazz and heavy metal, genres which for years I felt myself too stupid and too intelligent (respectively) to understand.

Unfortunately, there was never time to play any music in this computer skills class. Getting my students to compile their musical tastes was a way to guarantee interest, participation and originality as they created increasingly complex spreadsheets.

The process began with me asking them to "Explain the difference between lyrics and vocals." They could all do this quite effectively ("Lyrics is what you sing. Vocals is how you sing it.") though there was a consistent minority response which associated lyrics with written -- not spoken -- words. Another trouble spot was the difference between beat and rhythm, with me suggesting that beat was rooted to the tempo of a song while they maintained that beat was any repeated sonic hook. The most vociferous of these debates was settled when our school's music teacher came into the class on an unrelated errand and, having the matter laid before him, declared without hesitation "You all say 'That beat is hot.' What you really mean is 'That rhythm is hot'." Semantics perhaps?

I think my students were remarkably perceptive and consistent in their formulations. Another category I suggested to them was how good a song is for dancing. While they all love dancing, each class rejected this as a category, maintaining that beat and rhythm accounted for that element between them. Every class independently adopted relates to me, emotion, meaning and originality as categories while particular classes decided to include energy, popularity, inspiration and, yes, after a particularly impassioned mock-metal air guitar solo from me, instrumental jam as elements.

[Gordon Neill]

Adam said:

Gordon, you are the perfect modern consumer in this regard: the hell with the twenty odd years someone has spent learning to play their instrument - that's just elitist shit, what matters is how YOU feel.

Hah! I did say that 'it would easy to overstate it'. And I think you just did. It's not a matter, for me, of being unaware of the talent and the sheer bloody hard work that produces brilliant musicianship. As a musical arse, I'm in awe of someone who can produce magic from a bunch of wood and strings.

But I do think that, at times, musical virtuosity can become an end in itself. Possibly I'm scarred by being exposed at a young and tender age to nonsense such as 'Clapton is God'. And, yes, you did mention the 'J' word, a genre where the song can seem to take a very distant second to a demonstration of how clever the musician is. And where the musicians can so often strike glum poses, looking for all the world like troubled philosophers, rather than entertainers. But that's just me being me, I suppose.

I don't think that I'm the perfect modern consumer. Too stingy, for a start, and too knowing to fall for advertising or hype. But, yes, I suppose that I am coming from a position of it is about ME, or at least how I relate to the music. It doesn't matter how fantastically gifted a musician is, if the music doesn't reach me, then he's failed. A flurry of notes and blinding technique can get in the way of the music.

But, funnily enough, I was idley mulling over the matter last night and had thought of the modern consumer issue. I do think that, as technology gets more and more sophisticated, as music is so easily available almost everywhere, that musicianship does start to get taken for granted. It's perhaps not surprising that a group of students, used to electronic samples, drum machines and the like, can forget how the music is made.

[judith]

Though I think exposure plays a large part, I don't think it's merely a question of Lev's students forgetting how the music is made. For one thing, it might be highly inaccurate to assume these high school students in Brooklyn are only listening to or exposed to pop/mainstream etc music. I really wouldn't want to second guess what they're listening to in inner city New York. Also, as Lev states, they come from musical families and environments.

I still think that - though, yes, certainly mainstream music culture as described on this thread has a lot to do with what Lev has described - 'culture also relates in a greater sense than what we, as elders, perceive the youth is exposed to. There's cultural ancestry. There's the perception of 'musician' which differs from culture to culture. For example, consider that in some parts of the world, one does not sit alone for hours practicing or sit one on one with a teacher but learning is a group experience and except for lead dancers or musicians, soloing might not be done. One's playing is not how good they are (alone) but in relation to the group. Or then there's the language with no discrepancy between the drum or the person who plays it in the word for 'drum' (in some Native American tribes). Yes, I know that even so there is an awareness that music is made by people who are playing instruments which takes skill etc. I just think it's a little more complex topic than our discussion has allowed. For example, add to the mix that, generally speaking on the street, it's not really safe right now to stand out from the crowd too obviously as an individual. Or that, not only in music but in many aspects of our lives - the artisan, the home gardener, sewing - these skills are not affordable to learn let alone execute, nor can they be defined by dollars per hour. It would be insanely expensive to pay an hourly living wage per the time taken...etcetera...and western cultures (for eg) define worth by dollars. They aren't even thought of as 'skills' anymore but something 'manufactured' (whatever that means to someone who has no concept of what a factory is in relation to 'hand made') far far away by foreigners. Music is intrinsic to every experience we have and in someways and times - a result of every experience we have.

I am not discouraged by the students' reactions and interpretations. I am encouraged that a teacher can engage a group's interest in a project by using music. And, Like Lev, I am also impressed with their categories, their strong feelings, the inclusion of 'originality' 'emotion' and also that, after the air guitar solo, they were either sufficiently instructed enough or kind enough to add 'instrumental jam' as an element - alongside 'inspiration'.

I don't know, Lev. Even though you say otherwise, I still think you are a musician. For one thing you can't sit still with that synesthetic thing you've got going. For another, you (and even here on this music centric forum not everyone here would have) noticed the absence of things like that are close to a musician's heart like: 'accomplishment'; "'skill and expressiveness' without being over analytic about it." and fully expected these things to be included as something to savor in music. You just haven't found the instrument you are going to play yet.

[judith]

Oh I forgot, about semantics and beat and rhythm - some west coast semantics: the 'beat' can be a generalized term for rhythm, tempo or even just the whole music. For example: "I don't like his rapping but his beats (the music behind the rapper) are sick." Or, 'dope beats' meaning 'good music'.

[Adam Blake]

Adam said:

Gordon, you are the perfect modern consumer in this regard: the hell with the twenty odd years someone has spent learning to play their instrument - that's just elitist shit, what matters is how YOU feel.

Hah! I did say that 'it would easy to overstate it'. And I think you just did.

Yeah, I was a bear with a sore head. Actually, I'm glad you like music. It's not your fault most people have no idea how music is made. Most people have no idea how actors do what they do, but they still like watching them. Artists, artisans, performers etc shouldn't complain. And of course you're not the perfect modern consumer. If you were, there'd be at least one album you could listen to straight through!

[Gordon Neill]

Adam said:

...And of course you're not the perfect modern consumer. If you were, there'd be at least one album you could listen to straight through!

I'm sure you're wrong. I'm sure there must be an album that I can listen to all the way through. The trouble is, at the moment I can't think of one. I like music. But I also like complaining. Life can be very difficult.

[Adam Blake]

I'm sure there must be an album that I can listen to all the way through. The trouble is, at the moment I can't think of one.

How about "Tubular Bells" by Mike 0ldfield? It's only got one song on it but it's split into two halves with lots of little sections. There's no annoying singing to speak of and although there are a few guitar solos there's nothing too virtuosic. There is a rather pretentious "Master of Ceremonies" conceit towards the end of the first part but you could always go and make a cup of tea during that bit. It's got lots of instruments on it and lots of interlocking tunes - it's quite clever really, without being too demanding of the listener. You never know, it might be just what you're looking for.

[Gordon Neill]

Adam suggested:

Tubular Bells

It is cleverly put together, and not too demanding on the listener. Which is quite considerate. But it really is rather dull, to be honest. Especially the second side. And, as you say, that master of ceremonies guff is a bit embarrassing. Frankly, as a rule, I prefer singing to all those noisy instruments. No, I think I'd go and make a cup of tea the instant that the entire thing started.

But, while I've been away, I've not been idle. I have finally thought of an album that doesn't have a duff track. 'Hard Days Night' by the Beatles. That's it. I don't think there is another one.

[NormanD]

How about "Tubular Bells" by Mike 0ldfield?

If this fails to do the trick, there is always "Tubercular Balls" by Lol Coxhill. This may be a bit free jazz too far, lots of wailing saxophone in search of something to tap your foot too - but I think you should try it. At the very least, for something good to moan about.