qondio.com/0OCM

Musicianship -- Playing With Emotion

By Professor Bruno Noteworthy of profbruno.com

In my series of articles regarding "Kids Guitar", I have received several thought-provoking comments. One of them struck a nerve with me because it brought to life a problem that all of us music teachers have once a student reaches a certain technical proficiency on his or her instrument (in my case the guitar).

I had stated, and still maintain that music is learned logically, but played emotionally.

How do you teach someone who has been taught the technical aspects of how to play their instrument to "play with emotion"?

Interesting question.

The comment I was referring to involved a young girl who had a natural feel for several instruments, including the piano. The girl was given piano lessons but was perceived to have been turned by her teacher into a "note cruncher". The lessons then stopped. The fear being that she would lose her feel, and would become a mechanical player.

It's a legitimate fear. But there are several factors involved.

First, last, and foremost, not everyone who plays or sings music has the capacity to play or sing with emotion -- or at least the kind of emotion that makes one sit up and take notice. Not all musicians and singers are created equally -- unfortunately.

Let me tell you a story to illustrate.

Years ago, while I was ushering at Playhouse Square in Cleveland, a show came to town that was a tribute to the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber (Jesus Christ Superstar, Phantom of the Opera, and others).

There was a full orchestra, plus all of the pop instruments that were used in the various productions (guitars, bass guitar, etc.) It was kind of a black tie affair where the performers all were in tuxedos and formal dress. Michael Crawford, the original Phantom of the Opera star headlined the cast.

It was wonderful. When Mr. Crawford sang "Music of the Night" from Phantom, and "Gethsemane" from Superstar, he brought down the house.

But you could tell. It wasn't just his voice. It's what he DID with that voice to convey the emotion of those songs that made them so special. His voice "acted" out the parts.

Now Michael Crawford is Michael Crawford. The rest of us ain't. But...

A year or two later another tribute to Andrew Lloyd Webber came rolling into town. But instead of a full orchestra, there was only a "hot" (very good) band with several keyboardists to simulate the orchestra.

And the singers...

No matter how much they "screwed up their faces", their singing fell flat emotionally. All of the notes were hit properly. The timing was correct. Yet the emotional experience just did not cut it.

First of all, there is no substitute for a full orchestra, no matter how many keyboard players you use.

Secondly, not all singers can sing like Michael Crawford.

What this means is, like it or not, some people have an innate, God-given talent to communicate in this manner.

Some of this kind of talent can be learned. But only to a point. It's like having the ability to be a great orator. One can learn to speak better in public, but the great ones are the great ones -- for whatever reason.

Many of us, like me (I think), have partial ability. I at least understand it.

But for a musical instrument, it's harder. The ability is more subtle, and harder to explain from a technical standpoint.

All of involved in teaching music should recognize that our own ability to play or sing with an emotional impact varies considerably. Do I claim to have a wondrous feel for this?

Uh... No.

But I know what I hear. The commenter on my article also knew what he heard. Many of us can tell the difference, though we may not be able to always articulate the reason for it.

But let's face it. Music is a technical language. People who can play well "by feel" interpret the technical to the emotional naturally without knowing or caring about which technical "technique" they are using. They simply do it.

This ability must be protected.

Look. If you are a musician who wants to play in a symphony orchestra, or wants to be a studio musician, there is no substitute for technical ability. You are also going to have to read music -- and read it VERY well. That's just the way it is.

But any musician in these fields will tell you that technical ability is not enough. You must be able to bring your music to life.

Now, what if you don't have aspirations to play in a symphony orchestra, or could care less about being a studio musician?

That's fine. You can still make money making music if that's your goal.

And if you just want to learn an instrument or instruments just to play for yourself, THAT'S GREAT TOO. Your talent level is what it is. Who cares what other people think about your technical ability or lack of it? Most of us out there are just like you in most respects.

The point is that you are making music. Be proud of what you ARE able to do. Play as emotional as you know how. It's all good.

But...

There are a lot of you out there who have a real ability to communicate emotionally with your instrument or with your voice, or both -- that certain "something".

A music teacher needs to recognize this ability and nurture it. As a teacher, you can't avoid teaching the technical stuff (though you may be able to disguise some of it), but if, as a teacher, you notice this ability, don't let it get away. Help it, don't hinder it.

The music produced in these concerts can only be loosely described as 'music' BUT

for the player it is a measure of achievement
for the rest of the school it shows that here is one or more children doing their best for the school
for the parents it is the reward and accolade for the interminable 'practices' at home
for the school it is confirmation that the children saw themselves as a part of the whole.

The music is incidental even though it is the central aspect of the whole performance.

Brilliantly said!

I've been playing guitar for more than forty years now on and off - started off playing backing guitar to Shadows stuff with a man who really could play - and never learned to read music, but like you, James, I recognized that some few do have something that is over and above the technical aspects. Many who are superb performers such as Vera Lynne and much later the Beetles, never learned to read music, but boy could they perform it and in the case of Lennon and McCartney, 'write' it.

My own playing skill has never been of any great standard and over the years I have played less and less and forgotten many many more songs than I can sing and accompany myself with now. But I can still recognize the odd singer (such as Susan Boyle who surprised the whole world recently) and player who surpass the rest and really bring music to life, perhaps adding 'soul' to it?.

John Lennon was considered by many in the biz to have been a genius as far as rhythm guitar and composing is concerned. The way he put chords together... He was ahead of his time as far as popular music was concerned.

Thanks for the comment.

James, the best words describing what "Art" is, that I have read are, "Art is the quality of communication." (L. Ron Hubbard - himself quite an artist [writer])
He also said that expression of one's art must include both technical skill and ability, and a willingness to demonstrate such ability. This latter is what your article addresses: the willingness to demonstrate.
Perhaps one could say artists like Miles Davis, for instance, may not be as much technical as having extremely high willingness to demonstrate ability and communicate emotionally; given equal technical skills, in other words, one may yet have a greater willingness to demonstrate it to the level of Art as defined above.

Some people have great technical skills but can't use them to effectively communicate. Other people can communicate with a smaller skill level. While still others have both. They all have a certain technical skill level. The great ones don't let their technical ability get in the way. They simply use their technical ability as a tool to communicate not as an end all be all...

Great, James. This spoke to me with my writing. I've had two books published and I'm proud of that. But I use to think that, unless I won the Nobel Prize (or at least a Pulitzer), I hadn't made it. I finally realized that I write what I write, say what I say and do what I do and that's my contribution in the same way that there was only one Frank Sinatra. We all just make different contributions and ultimately we are who we are. And that's plenty good enough.

Yes, I really agree with you that the ability to excel at music requires a God given given, usually augmented by technical training. I suspect you could teach almost anyone to play a instrument to a certain extent, but not everyone can be a true musician.

Yeah June, that's true. The issue lies in the translation from the technical to the emotional. Some people have an instinct for it. But ya know... it's still music whether you just play for yourself or aspire to play for others professionally. In the biz, the demand for that ability goes up the higher you want to climb. But it shouldn't stop people from wanting to learn to play if only for their own pleasure and relaxation.

I suppose greatness at anything is kind of like this. Learning the pieces and parts is not enough, you must be able to also apply it the right way...it's why some stand a part in any given field.

Yeah, but one still shouldn't be discouraged even knowing the odds of becoming "great". There are bunches of reasons why anyone may choose to learn an instrument.

If ya wanna be great, then... be prepared for a lot of hard work and a wild wild -- with no guaranties.

To a great extent I think that despite all the training and practising etc it boils down to either 'having it or not having it'. By, 'it' I mean a gift. The winner of Young Musician of the Year here in the UK is a girl who plays the piano. The comment was made that even some talented adults could practise the piece she played in the competition for all they are worth, and they still wouldn't be anywhere near as good as she is when it came time to play it.

That "it" is a subtle thing. You can't quite put your finger on what it is, but you know it when you hear it. If any musician aspires to play at a high level, that "it" is essential. The rest of us do what we can according to what we are able. But teachers have to first notice this gift when we think we hear it, and then nurture it. My suspicion is that some teachers either don't notice or are so hung up on the technical aspects that they don't have the capacity to even notice the "it". Many students have that "it" at least to a certain degree.

But whatever... all musical students are making music -- and that's a good thing.

Wonderful article. Thank you. You said "music is learned logically, but played emotionally" The same may be said about any artistic creativity. As a painter I am dreaming about the music of my canvases and enjoy the singing pictures.

Thanks Tomas. You're right, of course. That's what makes participation in any of the arts so wonderful. Best of luck to you in your endeavors as an artist. I myself can't even draw stick figures very well...

Andrew Lloyd Webber is just so amazing. He makes even non-musical people like me love music.

Yes he is. He really knows how to capture that "certain something" and bring it life emotionally.

The copyright for this content entitled "Musicianship -- Playing With Emotion" has been specified by the contributor as:

This content may be copied, distributed, and modified, as long as a) the original author is acknowledged with a link back to the content page, and b) if the work is modified, the result is distributed with this same license. If you use this content according to the license specified, you must link to the following URL: