Generally, I don’t use notation software. I used Finale for all the double note scale exercises because I thought it looked better. But it was very time consuming. Especially entering in all the fingerings and making it look decent. So I’m considering only using my hand written notation for future posts. It would take considerable less time, and I don’t think my hand writing is all that bad!

Which do you prefer?

What’s your preference on the bandstand?

The jazz community has many heroes.

Naturally, we emit a pressure on players to sound a certain way and to take after our heroes. Eventually though, every player has to trace out his/her own path.

I remember sitting down with a Bill Evans record once, dedicated to transcribing every note. I struggled because I didn’t really dig Bill Evans. After a few hours, I put it away; I was too frustrated. I learned an important lesson that day and vowed never to put my heart and soul into something I didn’t dig 100%. Otherwise, I’m succumbing to that pressure. That was a moment of clarity for me and I began tracing my path.

You will be criticized for not sounding enough like the heroes. You will also be criticized for sounding too much like the heroes. That’s sacred ground! How do you deal?

Ignore them. Be yourself.

I’m really interested in how artists treat the word ‘technique.’ (See posts on Technique and Perfect Technique).

For musicians, technique often refers to ‘fast playing,’ but can also refer to precision, control, range and balance. Virtuosos are master technicians. They possess all of these qualities. In an effort to improve our technique, we’re taught, for example, to master scales (in every key!)

But isn’t there a flaw in this approach? If you have no intention of performing music that requires the skills acquired from practicing scales, then why practice scales!?

There are two issues here: The musical and the physical.

We often hear the question: Who has better technique, Oscar Peterson or Thelonious Monk? It’s a silly question. Some will argue: “With his incredible facility, Oscar has ability to express more than Monk!” To which I respond: “Yes, Oscar can express more Oscar than Monk. But Monk can express more Monk than Oscar! Are you listening to the music or notes/minute!?”

What if Monk acquired technical skills beyond what was required of his own music? One day, he ‘mastered’ the C major scale and could play it up and down faster than anybody. Knowing that he would never use a scale like that, one could say that it wouldn’t benefit his music. It might one day benefit someone else’s music, but most likely, it was a waste of Monk’s time.

How does one know what technical exercises they should practice?

What do you want to perform? Pick your repertoire. Repertoire comes first. Music comes first. That should be your goal. Then devise a strategy to acquire the skills needed to execute the music (if you don’t have them already!). Technique is a means to this end, not an end in itself.

Side note: If you are a master technician (i.e. technique is your main objective), could you say that you are a composer’s means to this end?

In regards to the second issue (the physical), I fear that students are too often injuring themselves and becoming discouraged because of ‘technical expectations.’ Their physical limitations make it impossible for them to achieve the proficiency of say, Oscar Peterson. What they need to realize is that everybody has a point of physical exertion on their instrument that can’t be crossed without injury. I would encourage all musicians to explore the limits of their physicality but never try to achieve someone else’s.

Remember: Music comes first.

Do you name your tunes after you write them?

Or

Do you name yours tunes before you write them?

Sometimes I like listening to written music and pretend it’s improvised music.
Sometimes I like listening to improvised music and pretend it’s written music.