[Harp-L] creativity and learning

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike wrote:

"  I can't see being spiritual and creative by a copy/paste approach  
or in pre-planning solos (which is very different then arranged parts)."


Creativity and originality are not inherently good or bad.  In some  
genres the desired effect is to play the same solo every time, with  
only minute variations to differentiate between performances--indeed,  
most rock went to this in the 70's and 80's.  That is neither good  
nor bad, but an aesthetic which one may like or dislike.  I don't see  
what any of this has to do with spirituality, but then I don't have  
much use for spirituality in general.


Moreover, there are many different types of creativity.  One type is  
to create something once which you consider perfect and then repeat  
it (this could be considered the basis of most Western formal music,  
in some ways) another is through constant free improvisation for each  
performance.  There is an infinite continuum in between (and other  
types as well).  What there isn't at any point is a greater level of  
creativity or any sort of superiority to either approach.  They are  
simply different approaches to music (or art in general), one which  
emphasizes quantity of output the other which emphasizes precision of  
output.  Both are creative in nature, but it is how that creativity  
is harnessed that makes the difference.  Neither is superior to the  
other in any abstract sense, though some individuals will obviously  
have personal preferences one way or another.

As for learning, I have always been of the opinion that the best way  
to learn is from studying those who came before.  This is true for  
most any subject, and no less musically.  I was a tympanist, and I  
suppose I could have "develope[d] pathways to increase [my] musical  
connection" but if I hadn't studied how to properly play the  
instrument in a technical sense and how to play the instrument in  
specific pieces (preferably by listening to, gasp, other tympanists)  
I would have made a glorious racket, but wouldn't have been able to  
play Beethoven very well (not that I could anyway, I never practiced  
enough).  And these go hand in hand.  Thus, I would suggest that  
someone learning to play the harmonica should go through and listen  
to those who came before, and yes, copy what they played.  I didn't  
do that for years, and it wasn't until I began putting such an effort  
in that I finally learned more than just what the instrument could  
physically do, but how the various parts can be put together in a  
musical context.  This is a far cry from being an imitator, though  
there is nothing inherently wrong in that.  Rather, for wherever you  
want to go musically you need a solid foundation of knowledge, and  
the best way to get that, IMO, is from listening to and learning from  
those who already spent decades with the instrument.

For example, I think it is quite significant that while Sun Ra and  
his Arkestra were amongst the most free and avant-garde musicians of  
their day, they were also a great big band capable of executing  
straight arrangements and swinging hard as well as any of their  
contemporaries.  That's one of the reasons I think they succeed so  
often where others in the same genres did not (though I should note  
that I would probably find more successes in the free/avant-garde  
jazz of the time than many, though not always the ones people  
expect).  Similarly, I tend to be moved more by the harmonica players  
who have learned older styles and then gone to use these techniques  
and such in new ways rather than those who just started their own  
thing.  Of course, this is just the method which I feel tends to work  
more often both in terms of individual musical progress and in terms  
of end quality of product; others disagree, as is always the case in  
matters of personal taste.




 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'