Musicianship or Technique?

[Leland]

Years ago, when I was in high school, there were either "technique players" that could play fast and maybe high, and "musicianship players" who could play really pretty and nice.

The two never seemed to come together in one person, though, at least not at that level of maturity. So, kids were either on the "technique" or the "musicianship" side of things.

Is this what the original poster was asking about?

(I've got other ideas in mind, but I just want to clarify this much for now)

[Mark]

I agree that to be a good musician, there is a high level of technique that must be achieved. But, although technique is necessary, it is not sufficient.

I have seen a lot of violin solists with incredible technique but little musicianship or let's call it emotion. They were truly impressive -- for a few minutes, then without the emotion it becomes boring. Wow, they can play all the correct notes really, really fast.

[Ames0325]

I too think that to be an excellent player one must have both technique and musicianship. A performance is not enjoyable if there are many missed notes or a overly-large/noticeable lack of good technique. As someone earlier stated it is impossible to play a wrong note musically, also playing with bad tone, wrong rhythms etc. detract from the musical value of the piece and therefore from the overall musicianship of the performer.
Music is a means of communicating ideas. In order to have an effective performance an player must have something to say and use the music to express that idea or emotion. I would rather hear hot cross buns or twinkle twinkle played with good technique and musicianship than the VW played with decent technique and mediocre musicianship. I have found that it doesn't matter so much what you play but how you play it that matters most especially when playing for an audience that knows and cares little about your insrument and just wants to hear good music.
I have heard performances by excellent technicians who have all or most of the notes, rhythms, phrasing down cold and sound very good when they played very difficult material, but was bored to tears. I did not feel any emotion there was no communication no passion none of the electricity that seems to flow when excellent technique is combined with wonderful musicianship. On the other hand I have heard much simpler pieces with a lot of love just from listening you could hear/feel the passion and enjoyment the persons got from their music.
So I would have to say overall musicianship is more important than technique but as Rick Denny earlier stated technique is the means and musicianship is the end.

Amy

[WoodSheddin]

There seem to be many opinions about musicianship versus technique. I have always been of the opinion that technique can be taught but playing musically cannot. One can learn all the techniques necessary to play musically, but the innate ability cannot be taught.

With enough mindless repetition any one can play a technically challenging tune. It takes listening and mental engagement to play a phrase well.

On the otherhand, fast and expressive are not mutually exclusive. One still needs quickness in order to effectivelly play all of the literature, so don't skimp on the Arbans.

[Dean]

There is no OR. You need both.

Being "musical" is simply about making choices. All playing can be explained in purely technical terms, should you choose to do so. ALL PLAYING. But, that "feeling" you get when someone plays something so well and delivers an emotion--perhaps you cant really explain that, but you CAN still explain their playing in technical terms.

As I said, being musical is making choices. Your technique either allows you to perform the choice, or it inhibits you from performing the choice. Do not always assume that just because someone missed a good "musical" idea that it is a detriment to their musicality--it can mean a lack of technique!!

As an example, in a solo I was once practicing, there was a passage that ended on the C below the bass staff--a rather stuffy note for euphoniums, using first, third, and fourth valves. It's an agressive piece, so I really wanted to "blat" the heck out of that note, but my TECHNICAL limitations would not allow it... So, someone hearing me might say "Man, I would've played that low C so much louder..." The listener may not realize that I had good musical intentions, but simply lacked the ability to perform the concept I had in my mind...

So, in some ways, technique can be MORE important... Simply because without sufficient technique to perform them, your musical choices are veiled from the audience...

[Tom Mason]

I've been to a few auditions in my life. Won some and lost some. The tide of discussion with managers and leaders of small groups have been that sometimes you can win the audition if you show that you have the needed technique and the ability to play musically. This doesn't mean flawless technique and the inability to play musically as a soloist or with a group. It does mean that you must have the ability to play the technical aspects of the music that will be encountered, and the ability to match style with the other players. ( in my case as a bassist, the ability to push a rhythm section with correct style and tempo)

Many of us have heard the player who playes every note on the horn really fast. We have also heard the musical player who may miss a note now and then. I would rather hear the more musical player, because he or she will match more effectively what I am working for if I am the leader or a partner.

Tom Mason

[tubatooter1940]

I used to recruit college musicians from local schools to play in my bar band.Most of them could be considered competent,technically,but they couldn't wail.It would take months of me jumping up and down beside them yelling,"Go,go,go,go"before they let loose enough to drive these
Mobile bar patrons out onto the dance floor.Playing correctly in a large
ensemble may be acceptable but in a small group,one has to really honk and even overplay to get the job done."The job"being defined as motivating a crowd to drink the bar dry due to finding the dancing exciting and the music and chicks hot.The best pickers may not be technically perfect but have the ability to rise to the occasion and emote to a worthy audience and find themselves playing up to a level above what they may consider thier best when the occasion arrises.I like guys that can do that.
Tubatooter1940

[Leland]

I used to recruit college musicians from local schools to play in my bar band.Most of them could be considered competent,technically,but they couldn't wail.It would take months of me jumping up and down beside them yelling,"Go,go,go,go"before they let loose enough to drive these Mobile bar patrons out onto the dance floor....

I forgot about that kind of playing!

There's certainly a ballsy approach that's needed in many venues. That sort of aggressive style that goes "Listen to this, it ROCKS, and we're having a ton of fun playing it, too!"

A group doesn't need flashing lights & smoke to make it happen, either. Hell, they don't even need to move around on stage. There's a certain presence that's evident when musicianship & confidence are high enough to let the performers really dig in and show off.

Most of all, it has to be honest in how it comes out. Everybody can spot performance fakery in an instant. Many of the woodwind students at my college moved around for the sake of movement, not because they felt like it. But, if the performer is genuinely having a good time, then audience involvement will happen at a high level.