Thoughts trigged by another thread

[NewGuyonGuitar]

In another thread, I asked about comparing yourself to famous musicians, and DCurtis said "I think you are confusing success and fame with ability." I think he's right.

 

jeremy_green said "David Gilmour is to me among the very top for creativity and touch. He is not fast at all but that isn't his bag. Jimmy Page - same thing. His writing skills are off the charts. Can I play his stuff? Damn right... Can I write like him?? Hell no."

 

Finally, AJ6StringSting said this "In the 1980's, I was like a zerox machine, I did solos note for note ( Malmsteen, Vai, Satriani, Rhoads, Holdsworth) .... after I copied them and learned all I could from their style , my own style absorbed what I took from them. I really scratched my head when people said , "Dude, You're so original."

 

Technical ability, in my limited understanding of it, seems to involve the ability/dexterity to play a piece of music note for note.

 

Creating/writing your own music seems to be another facet of musicianship.

 

Is it fair to say that beginning musicians generally favor practicing technical ability over writing?

 

Is it fair to say that experienced musicians generally favor "xeroxing" other people's work as compared to creating/writing their own?

[1001gear]

Classical musicians are made of xerox. Same literature over and over but most of it is written so convincingly that the tradition continues undaunted. They ( the players ) do all have different interpretive skills and personalities and that - the performance, is the craft. The music itself is a given. The impossible technical requirements, the manic study and practice, all given.

 

As far as rock/pop/jazz guys xeroxing their heroes, I wouldn't know; never went that way, seems like a waste of time. I've always admired the general vibe of my heroes and absorbed the gist of it but after the initial clone phase, and I think this might be common to most players, I went with what was in my head.

 

I started drumming so I could play the songs. So that's what there was to that. I started piano so I wouldn't be a dumm drummer. By the time I got to guitar in my 20s it was just more cool stuff to try and I've developed along those lines. The pros here will tell you that ain't enough but for me that's good enough.

[jeremy_green]

I think in most cases learning other people's stuff can be a nice excuse to hide from putting yourself on the line and doing your own. I know speaking for myself, even though i much prefer performing original pieces... when I practice i seem to avoid doing it... It is easy to get caught up in the pursuit of technique - because that is fun too... Or endlessly noodling over backing tracks etc.

 

Writing involves work... you know how people can be with that four letter word. Many are too tired or too lazy.

 

Then there are others who prefer to slag others. Doing their own puts them out there and makes them vulnerable. There is a LOT of ego {censored} among guitarists.

 

The bottom line is you will never be defined by how well you play someone else's music. Your "legacy" on the instrument is defined by your original works or original takes on other's songs. Nobody should be avoiding this. But we do... why is a tough question for a guy with a bunch of letters after his name to answer.

[mosiddiqi]

What the guys said pretty much.

 

In my case, as soon as I could hold down a chord I was writing songs. That's always been the focus for me..all the technical work I've done has come out of being frustrated with having an idea that I couldn't play properly. Learning stuff note for note was fun and the ONLY way that I knew to "practise". I didn't know what a pentatonic scale was before I could play a Jimmy Page solo..the names/theory came much later as I became more interested in knowing a bit about what I was doing.

[jonfinn]

 

Is it fair to say that experienced musicians generally favor "xeroxing" other people's work as compared to creating/writing their own?

 

 

No. what gives you that idea?

[girevik]

Is it fair to say that experienced musicians generally favor "xeroxing" other people's work as compared to creating/writing their own?

 

 

All the ones I admire created more and more of their own music as they gained experience, which is the opposite of what you state above. Therefore my answer is NO to that too.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

You're partly right. Technique is the physical ability to execute the musical passage on your instrument. Generally, players with the best technique tend to be the ones who's technique goes unnoticed; because nothing's wrong. Ehhhh... no. It is fair to say that it's much easier to discuss ideas about technique. No. what gives you that idea?

 

 

Maybe I'm surfing the wrong parts of YouTube, see lots of people covering other people's work. Although, if I reflect, I do see new music as well.

[1001gear]

YTube itself is bound to be a narrow glimpse. I like the Nurburgring videos. Very exhilarating.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

YTube itself is bound to be a narrow glimpse. I like the Nurburgring videos. Very exhilarating.

 

 

Thanks for another non sequitur

[1001gear]

Well it is a pretty narrow view. I don't know how to drive fast but like the excitement. Nurburgring videos satisfy that need. I absorb information about proper line and racing etiquette, general car facts and very little else of racing or the car business. That would take actual involvement in an actual facet. Obvious enough right?

What is your musical background anyway? Tastes, ambitions etc ... ?

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

Well it is a pretty narrow view. I don't know how to drive fast but like the excitement. Nurburgring videos satisfy that need. I absorb information about proper line and racing etiquette, general car facts and very little else of racing or the car business. That would take actual involvement in an actual facet. Obvious enough right? What is your musical background anyway? Tastes, ambitions etc ... ?

 

 

Musical novice, as I've stated previously. Took 6 months of lessons 2 years ago, started with a different teacher 4 months ago. One ambition would to be able to play the guitar parts for La Villa Strangiato by Rush.

[1001gear]

That's all? What kinds of music? Wanna be in bands? Wanna be real good? what ???

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

That's all? What kinds of music? Wanna be in bands? Wanna be real good? what ???

 

 

Rock in general. Music by guitarists I like would include Bonamassa, Santana, Knopfler, Walsh, Lifeson, Page, SRV, EVH. No interest in being in a band. Being good would be nice, but 10,000 hours is a long hall when you have limited practice time.

[1001gear]

The average person will waste more than 10.000 hrs just living so I wouldn't worry about getting those in. Over the years if you want to you will. Anyway it should be clear to you now that being good doesn't have to entail being a salable shred machine. I do think though that you should broaden your listening to include jazz, classical, and beyond. There's so much of what music can be that has little to do with ho difficult the guitar part is.

 

Anyway, knowing your frame of mind helps a ton.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

The average person will waste more than 10.000 hrs just living so I wouldn't worry about getting those in. Over the years if you want to you will. Anyway it should be clear to you now that being good doesn't have to entail being a salable shred machine. I do think though that you should broaden your listening to include jazz, classical, and beyond. There's so much of what music can be that has little to do with ho difficult the guitar part is. Anyway, knowing your frame of mind helps a ton.

 

 

I like classical music, been to more of those concerts than anything else. Also enjoy Country quite a bit. Enjoy the occasional aria as well. Have some Winton Marsalis on cd but haven't listed to it in an age.

 

What about you, sir? Going to share any information about yourself?

[1001gear]

I like all kinds of music but I'm real picky. Has to be good material done well. That so far excludes a lot of prog, and most metal. To me the guys involved are in over their heads ( musically) and just posing for the cash. This is impossible to get across to the average rocker so I don't bother going there. I play drums; work a lot on rhythm and have developed pretty well in that area. Work also on a keyboard and guitar. That takes care of harmony and melody. Nothing special. Just work.

[JonR]

Is it fair to say that experienced musicians generally favor "xeroxing" other people's work as compared to creating/writing their own?

No.

But I do think there are basically two kinds of musicians (at all levels): those who are primarily (or solely) players, and those who are primarily composers.

I think it's quite rare to find a musician who excels equally - or is equally famous - in both instrumental virtuosity and compositional skill. (There are some, but it's a small minority.)

 

There is a difference between musicians who want to write, and those who are not much interested in writing. It doesn't depend on how experienced or skilled you are.

There are phenomenally skilled pros who have never written a thing. And they might include some very able jazz improvisers, adept at invention when confronted with an existing chord sequence - who would never "xerox" anyone else's work - but are not interested in writing anything original. (They would be rare, but do exist.)

 

IMO, there would be very few experienced pros who only want to copy someone else's work note for note (with the important exception of classical orchestral players, of course, because that's their business!). In non-classical music, the more experienced you become, the more you tend to become unique and "original", more recognisable as a musical individual - whether you intend to be or not.

Even if you instinctively copy other players - because you enjoy it, or as a way of learning, or because you don't feel able to do anything else - the more players you copy, the less you will sound like anyone but yourself. The longer you play (the more people you copy), the harder it is to avoid sounding "original".

 

In comparison, those that want to write often start off with that ambition, maybe even before they take up an instrument (maybe they just sing stuff and write lyrics). So composition becomes an ongoing project, and playing an instrument is just a means to help them achieve that.

(and just as with playing, the most "original" composers are the ones who have copied the largest number of other composers.)

 

But the point is, you can go in either direction. Being able to compose is not an essential component of musicianship. You are not somehow inferior if you can only play, and not write. (Classical instrumentalists prove that.)

And of course, you can be a great composer and a very poor player technically. (The classic example is Irving Berlin, who could only play piano in the key of F#, and used a piano with a special lever that changed keys for him.)

But it's true to say that a composer has to have some instrumental skill - unless he/she just sings and gets a musician to write it down for them. A player OTOH doesn't need any compositional skill at all.

 

But in the end, you do what you want . There are no rules. It's a big mistake to let a view of how other musicians operate dictate how you develop your own musicianship. Just because some practices are common, doesn't mean you can't be rare!

[BydoEmpire]

 

Is it fair to say that beginning musicians generally favor practicing technical ability over writing?

I don't think so - I know lots of folks who learned guitar (or piano) just so they could write songs. As soon as they get a few open chords under their fingers, they're writing. I think it totally depends on the player.

 

 

Is it fair to say that experienced musicians generally favor "xeroxing" other people's work as compared to creating/writing their own?

No, for the many reasons stated above.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

Probably, yes. That would be for a mix of reasons. Many beginners think that composing is a special skill, needing special talent. (They might have got over the myth that playing an instrument requires talent, but they have yet to conquer the myth that composing requires talent.) At the same time, as a beginner, you have yet to learn a lot of the strategies and practices that make composition easier. IOW, composition and technique alike require learning a few skills. Even if you start off wanting to write (and believing you can), your first attempts will be crude, just as your first attempts at playing guitar are crude. In addition, while technical skills are pretty easy to grasp (you know what you have to do, even though your hands will struggle to do it for a while), composing skills can be more elusive, more abstract. No. But I do think there are basically two kinds of musicians (at all levels): those who are primarily (or solely) players, and those who are primarily composers. I think it's quite rare to find a musician who excels equally - or is equally famous - in both instrumental virtuosity and compositional skill. (There are some, but it's a small minority.) There is a difference between musicians who want to write, and those who are not much interested in writing. It doesn't depend on how experienced or skilled you are. There are phenomenally skilled pros who have never written a thing. And they might include some very able jazz improvisers, adept at invention when confronted with an existing chord sequence - who would never "xerox" anyone else's work - but are not interested in writing anything original. (They would be rare, but do exist.) IMO, there would be very few experienced pros who only want to copy someone else's work note for note (with the important exception of classical orchestral players, of course, because that's their business!). In non-classical music, the more experienced you become, the more you tend to become unique and "original", more recognisable as a musical individual - whether you intend to be or not. Even if you instinctively copy other players - because you enjoy it, or as a way of learning, or because you don't feel able to do anything else - the more players you copy, the less you will sound like anyone but yourself. The longer you play (the more people you copy), the harder it is to avoid sounding "original". In comparison, those that want to write often start off with that ambition, maybe even before they take up an instrument (maybe they just sing stuff and write lyrics). So composition becomes an ongoing project, and playing an instrument is just a means to help them achieve that. (and just as with playing, the most "original" composers are the ones who have copied the largest number of other composers.) But the point is, you can go in either direction. Being able to compose is not an essential component of musicianship. You are not somehow inferior if you can only play, and not write. (Classical instrumentalists prove that.) And of course, you can be a great composer and a very poor player technically. (The classic example is Irving Berlin, who could only play piano in the key of F#, and used a piano with a special lever that changed keys for him.) But it's true to say that a composer has to have some instrumental skill - unless he/she just sings and gets a musician to write it down for them. A player OTOH doesn't need any compositional skill at all. But in the end, you do what you want . There are no rules. It's a big mistake to let a view of how other musicians operate dictate how you develop your own musicianship. Just because some practices are common, doesn't mean you can't be rare!

 

Eloquently and clearly stated. Thank you.