Re: [Harp-L] re: being a musician

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Cohen wrote:
>> rainbowjimmy wrote: "Most kids in a high school band can do this."
>> And MOST harmonica players can't, this is exactly my point.
>
>And that only matters if you want to do studio work where the  
>expectation is that you'll nail the piece on the music stand in one  
>take.  Otherwise, the whole point of playing a musical instrument is  
>to get the sound that's in your head out of the instrument and into  
>the ears of your listeners.  With that newfangled recording  
>technology, it's no longer necessary to write down the notes.

It's true that recording solves a lot of problems where getting ideas
OUT of one's head is concerned.  It doesn't solve the problem of getting
your ideas into other musicians' heads, or getting their ideas into
yours.  Not to mention that studio work is really nice work.  
 
There are many other musical situations -- backing a touring artist, or
playing in a Broadway show -- where the players are expected to know how
to read.  These situations aren't about getting what's in your head out
to the world -- they're about getting someone else's ideas into your
head, so you can interpret them in a musical way.

None of us functions in a musical vacuum.  We all learn to play music,
at least in part, by following the examples of others.  (I've heard a
lot of people claim they really were never influenced by anybody, and I
must say that in most cases they sound like it.)  Using one's ears is
the most important way to learn, because music is sound.  But reading is
a very important and very efficient way to learn complex stuff, fast. 
It's nearly impossible to learn a Beethoven sonata by ear, or even an
Allman Brothers tune like "In Memory of Elizabeth Reed," and it's
certainly a lot faster to do it with sheet music whether you've got the
ears or not.

Finally, there seems to be a consistent feeling among some of the
writers on this thread to the effect that making up ideas in your own
head is always and necessarily more creative than interpreting someone
else's ideas.  In other words, cranking out slight variations on
traditional blues licks (because that's what's in the player's head) is
more inherently creative than playing Beethoven at Carnegie Hall. This
argument doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny. It's not easy to play
Beethoven, it's a real act of creative genius to play Beethoven
brilliantly, and the people who can do it are not mechanics, they're
artists.  That's why concert artists get the big bucks.  

Further, if I play Little Walter's "Juke", whether I learned it by ear
or from a piece of paper, whose ideas am I playing?  My own? No. I'm
playing my interpretation of Walter's ideas.  If that's creative, than
interpreting someone else's music is creative.  

In short, improvising is one path to creativity, and interpretation is
another. Some people do one or the other or (rarely) both brilliantly,
most people don't.  Neither approach is the do-all and end-all of
music.  Most players could do a lot to improve their abilties in both
areas.  Working on both is a good way to improve one's overall
musicianship, regardless of which is primary for a given player.

Thanks, Richard Hunter 
hunterharp.com