Musicianship or Technique?

The Impaler · Post by **The Impaler** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:16 am

I agree and disagree. Yes, I think musicianship is utterly and completely more important than technique. However, I've never met a dramatic musician who captivated me with their well-designed phrases and involved me as a listener with their overall musicianship that didn't have great technique. I think, on a certain level, they go hand-in-hand.

Now about the disagreement. I think musicianship CAN be taught. In my opinion (humble as it is) musicianship is a result of time and experience. I believe it is possible to put a student in a position where, over a period of time, be it brief or prolonged, they can acquire the necessary experience to play with great musicianship. In fact, not only do I choose to believe that, I have to. Otherwise, what is the purpose of public-school music education???

Uncle Buck · Post by **Uncle Buck** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:01 pm

I can't vote on the poll, because I don't believe the concepts to be separate. Good musicianship is impossible without good technique, and good technique is impossible without good musicianship.

Music is all about communication, and terms like musicianship and technique sometimes oversimplify the many things that go into communicating something musically. Communicating something through music includes many things, including tone, articulation, volume, phrasing, etc., etc., etc.

I also disagree with the comment about "musicianship" not being as apparent in band or orchestra playing when a conductor is supposedly calling the shots. I don't think a mature musician playing in an ensemble can "pass the buck" to the conductor to establish the musical communication of the ensemble.

I realize I'm getting on my soapbox more and more, but this leads me to what has, for many years, been my pet peeve among my fellow tuba players - complaints about how "boring" the tuba part is. Of course, tubists usually play many, many fewer notes than other instrumentalists in band and orchestra literature. In some orchestra literature, a required piece of equipment for the tubist should be a clicker, to keep track of counting rests.

However, in those situations, a good musician should be aware of what is going on in the rest of the ensemble, and using that to better understand the role of the "boring" tuba part. In other words, don't complain about the "boring" part unless you believe your understanding of the entire work (structure, harmony, etc.), and the part the tuba part plays in that work, is beyond improvement.

I'd rather be the tuba player who plays 20 notes, but gets noticed when he plays those notes, than the viola player who says away for the entire concert without being noticed. One of the best moments for me was, when leaving an orchestra concert, I passed a child (probably 6-8) who excitedly pointed to me and said "That's the guy who plays loud at the end!!"

I was proud to be the guy who played loud at the end.

Uncle Buck · Post by **Uncle Buck** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:11 pm

For some reason, the number 8 got replaced by a smiley face in my post.

TubaRay · Post by **TubaRay** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:13 pm

Uncle Buck has spoken quite eloquently, or at least spoken what I believe to be the truth. I rarely get bored playing the tuba part. There is SO much to be done, and to be done well. Perfection is such an eluding thing to accomplish. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the more active tuba parts. I enjoy having a challenge technically and otherwise, but even the most simple part can be turned into a challenge, provided there is some musical value in the piece.

I hope everyone reads Uncle Buck's post. It is a really good one. There are several other posts which touch on the importance of good technique. It is important. It is, however, a means to an end. The end is excellent quality, MUSICAL playing. I am constantly striving to meet that goal. Someday, I may be totally satisfied with a performance. Then again, I may not.

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:38 pm

I once asked Lee Hipp, with whom I was studying, which was more important, technique or musicianship? I was fishing for an excuse for my bad technique (and kidding myself about my musicianship, for that matter).

He said that you really do have to have both.

If you are musical but lack technique, the musicianship has no means of escape. But if you have good technique, then whatever musicianship you do have finds its proper expression.

Beauty works at many levels. I read some authors because I like their writing, even though I'm not interested in what they have to say (and in some cases I disagree with it). I read other authors because of what they are saying. And then there are authors who I think might be saying something worthwhile but their writing is so poor that I miss it. The best authors have worthwhile things to say and write beautifully, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy and benefit from the others.

I disagree that musicianship is all about innate talent. I do think some people are born with it, but I also think that many develop enough of it as they grow in this weird world to still make worthwhile beauty. If they have no technique, however, it has a hard time finding expression. And, in many ways, learning technique is what reveals for them the mechanism of musical beauty.

Rick "who thinks being musical is no excuse for weak technique" Denney

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:12 pm

If you're talking strictly about perfomance and not the act of making music (stay with me here!), then technique is important and I believe that with sufficient work and rote learning, an unmusical person could become a passable performer, if by nothing else than pure imitation of a musical performance.

However, if we're discussing the act of making music, then we have to acknowledge not only the performer who interprets the music, but the composer who creates it. That second person, the composer, must be a musician (i.e.be able to put thoughts and emotions into musical form).

A composer who is unable to play what s/he writes is not uncommon (I've never heard any stories about "Rafe" being able to play the bass tuba). But the composers are the true musicians and there's no substitute for musicality in that area.

I suppose that there's a nugget of advice in al of this: if you want to learn to be musical, try writing some music.

tubacdk · Post by **tubacdk** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:41 pm

If we look at other artistic forms we can maybe more clearly see that you need to have creativity and technique. A theater actor can't deliver a soliloquy without clear diction or good voice projection. A painter can't get his/her ideas onto the canvas without good brush technique, an eye for shading, etc. There truly needs to be a marriage of creativity and technique in order for a performer to deliver the message.

With that in mind, I voted for musicianship. I believe musicianship to be more important because I think a performer with an idea to communicate will work at the technique required to get the idea across. A proficient technician without musical inspiration is satisfied with technique, because that's the goal. With music being the goal, the technique has to be there in order for the music to come across. I think that technique is a part of musicianship. I don't believe that true musicianship can be achieved without technique. Technique, on the other hand, doesn't need to have musicianship. It's an end in itself.

my three cents.

ThomasDodd · Post by **ThomasDodd** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:47 pm

I depends on what you mean by technique. Many great musicians know nothing about technique. They just do what sounds right. I like Mr. Jacobs comparison of brass playing and singing. Most singers couldn't tell you much abiout how to sing, they just open their mouth and it comes out. Many brass players are like that. The music in their head/heart is simply sung through the horn.

What many consider poor technique can be wused effectively in the proper musical context. Listen to some of the things done by jazz horns. Most fiddle players in country music would be considered to have very poor technique by those classically trained yet it fits the music they make. Great technique with no musical context is useless.

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:59 pm

tubacdk wrote:I don't believe that true musicianship can be achieved without technique. Technique, on the other hand, doesn't need to have musicianship.

I'm not sure I agree with the way you said this.

Let's go back to definitions.

Technique--the ability to play the correct note at the correct time and dynamic level with the correct articulation and phrasing.

Musicianship--the ability to play notes at a pitch, time, dynamic level, articulation, and phrasing in such as way as to express a musical point.

From these definitions, it would seem to me that technique is the means and musicianship is the end.

But the person who can do just technique, as I've defined it, will still sound musical if the music has enough direction in it. I just don't know how one would understand and process that direction without being musical. If that is true, then musicianship is also a means to the end of proper technique.

Too many people define technique as the mere ability to play lots of notes in a short time.

Let me say my definitions a different way:

Technique--The ability to play the correct note at the correct time and dynamic level with the correct articulation and phrasing.

Musicianship--Knowing what "correct" is.

Rick "who thinks knowledge of correct comes from filling one's head with examples of it" Denney

tubacdk · Post by **tubacdk** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:40 pm

Rick Denney wrote: Technique--the ability to play the correct note at the correct time and dynamic level with the correct articulation and phrasing. Or, The ability to play the correct note at the correct time and dynamic level with the correct articulation and phrasing.

Musicianship--the ability to play notes at a pitch, time, dynamic level, articulation, and phrasing in such as way as to express a musical point. Or, Knowing what "correct" is.

From these definitions, it would seem to me that technique is the means and musicianship is the end.

I agree enirely. The difference is that someone with technique can be told what to do and do it. A musician knows what to do without being told and does it. The musician is the one who stands out to the audition committee because s/he did everything on the page but made the excerpts sound inspired. It's the difference between the 14-year-old playing a Prokofiev Piano Concerto and Yefim Bronfman. It's engimatic, but it makes all the difference in the world. A musician can deliver the message by energizing the things that aren't on the page. The pacing of a ritard, the intensity in the vibrato, the weight of an accent, the placement of the peak of a phrase... Again, these are all things that can be taught to a technician. But a musician knows how to do it without being told. And the difference can be heard & felt in a performance. Again, it's enigmatic, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Leland · Post by **Leland** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:38 pm

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 · Post by **Mark** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:45 pm

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 · Post by **Ames0325** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:23 pm

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 · Post by **WoodSheddin** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:27 am

musician wrote: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 · Post by **Dean** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:15 pm

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 · Post by **Tom Mason** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:33 pm

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 · Post by **tubatooter1940** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:22 pm

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 · Post by **Leland** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:06 am

tubatooter1940 wrote: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.

TubeNet

Musicianship or Technique?

What is the most important - Musicianship or Technique?

The concepts are not separate

Smiley Face

What is the most important?

Re: Musicianship or Technique?

If you have to put weight on one over the other?