Playing so tight that no room is left for the imagination

Curt Trisko · Post by **Curt Trisko** » 19 May 2015 6:23 pm

I took a moment today to look at some recordings that I made last year. They have their defects, but they're mostly okay. I don't play or practice as much as I did at that time.

The defects don't bother me that much. If I played the same way now, I'd find it unacceptable, yet I don't feel bad about it. It got me thinking about the role of the listener. When the playing is so tight, it leaves no room for the listener's imagination. When I listen to music, I find myself "implying" into the song what I want or else singling out and "interpreting" the parts that stick out due to being overlooked or due to being a subtle mistake.

Come to think it of it, I haven't been able to get into the really tight players, such as Paul Franklin and Buddy Emmons, as much as other people on this forum. When the playing is so tight, it becomes "take it or leave it". When there's ambiguity or unachieved potential, it gets you involved as a listener.

The reason I bring this up is because I think it bears on where my own develop with pedal steel is going. If I prefer some imperfection in others' playing, does this mean I'm always going to have some degree of slop in my own playing?

I know I'm not the only one that thinks this way. Many of our most beloved musicians have plenty of incurable imperfections in their music, but then compensate for it by refining other aspects of their playing to an incredible degree. Think of Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, B.B. King, etc. In fact, these are the type of musicians that are held up as being transcendent instead of just being extremely proficient.

Larry Carlson · Post by **Larry Carlson** » 19 May 2015 6:41 pm

Curt Trisko wrote: The reason I bring this up is because I think it bears on where my own develop with pedal steel is going. If I prefer some imperfection in others' playing, does this mean I'm always going to have some degree of slop in my own playing?

I am certainly not as skilled as most in here, but I wouldn't call it "slop" in playing. I think I would call it "personalizing" a song. When I play a song I stick to the intentions of the melody and mood etc. but I have a tendency to wander off and put a little bit of me in to it. Sometimes it works out and sounds great. Sometimes I stumble a bit but each time I try to make the song "mine". No one will ever play that song like I just did. Not that they would want to of course but I like sticking a little bit of me in there and the mistakes and stumbles are just part of the process.

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 19 May 2015 6:41 pm

I like to hear that there's a human with emotions - and flaws, behind the instrument.

Tim Russell · Post by **Tim Russell** » 19 May 2015 7:05 pm

Think of Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, B.B. King, etc. In fact, these are the type of musicians that are held up as being transcendent instead of just being extremely proficient.

When reading your post, the first person I thought of was Willie Nelson. I really like his laid back, "not forced" approach to any instrument.

While I do lobe the tight sound of Buddy, Paul Franklin, and over into the metal realm, the technical playing of Yngwie Malmsteen, I'm at a point now where the "polished" sound is not what I'm necessarily after.

To each his own, and my tastes change frequently too; if you bring this up again in 6 months, I might be on board with the polished sound at that time!

Craig Baker · Post by **Craig Baker** » 19 May 2015 7:45 pm

This thread brings to mind the many times I saw Buddy Charleton, my all-time favorite on the steel. When he played live, though the performance was excellent, occasionally I'd hear a small mistake. I would spend two weeks trying to learn that mistake so I could use it in a song.

There is something noble about a real musician who once-in-a-while makes mistakes. . . and doesn't need to look back.

Craig

Dick Wood · Post by **Dick Wood** » 20 May 2015 7:28 am

When there's ambiguity or unachieved potential, it gets you involved as a listener.

You'd love me.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 20 May 2015 7:48 am

Georg Sørtun wrote:I like to hear that there's a human with emotions - and flaws, behind the instrument.

Georg, we're going to get along famously...

Jamie Mitchell · Post by **Jamie Mitchell** » 20 May 2015 9:37 am

so you're saying you're not really vibing on this, but if he had just threw in a few boners, it woulda been perfect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZrrM8sXR70

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 20 May 2015 9:57 am

What I would have played versus what someone else played is something I think about a lot, but not necessarily in a negative way. I look at it as different points of view.

it's important to honor the wishes of the producer or leader, who hires specifically for the qualities a player brings. If they need a player with jazzy sensibility, they should hire that player and not try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

As far as leaving it to the imagination of the listener, I think most listeners like to be spoon fed. The lyrics and vocals of a song are really the areas where I wish a little more restraint would be shown. I hate overly sentimental vocals and lyrics.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 20 May 2015 11:37 am

Unless you're talking about a note-for-note transcription of, let's say, a classical piece which is completely scored and standardized, my take is that the only one who knows for sure if a player has made a "mistake" is the player. I'm defining a "mistake" as something that was played that was not intended. Of course, there are even differences in completely scored pieces from performance to performance, but the intent in most situations is that they should be very close.

As far as popular music goes, I confess that I prefer to hear music for which players can do at least some level of interpretation rather than feel completely shackled to a score. I have never gotten why some band leaders are hung up about trying to force everyone to copy an exact note-for-note performance - especially, let's say, at something like a bar/critter-club/dive gig. But whatever turns them on.

As far as musicians like Dylan, Willie, and BB being "transcendant" versus musicians like Buddy and Paul and many other great instrumentalists being merely "proficient" - I think you are missing the point completely. They are all transcendant in the sense that what they do is "larger-than-life". There are different roads to greatness. Being a great instrumentalist doesn't mean that the soul is sucked out in any way. In fact, I argue very much the opposite. That level of instrumental virtuosity opens up huge realms of possibilities - we only hear one sample path in a given performance. My experience is that if I listen to the same great player(s) perform the same piece multiple times, there will be differences. Sometimes subtle, sometimes major. Are they intended differences, stream-of-consciousness improvisations, or mistakes? I don't care. Great is great. And I'd much rather listen to great than mediocre. YMMV.

On mistakes - I have heard many great players make what I believe were obvious clams. It doesn't bother me a whit, nor does it diminish their "greatness". To me, musical virtuosity is much, much more than the absence of mistakes. The entire way a great player comports him or herself in performance is the true measure, and it's usually pretty clear when in the presence of greatness. Sensitivity to the piece being played, assurance, great tonal/melody/harmony/rhythmic feel, and a sense of ease are all part of it. What is great may well depend on the style being played - I would not compare, e.g., Itzhak Perlman with Thelonious Monk with Danny Gatton with BB King with RL Burnside, who are/were all great in their own way, to my tastes. Very different standards for completely different approaches to music.

Myself, I prefer to try to set high standards for myself at anything I do seriously. I don't worry about it too much if/when I don't hit that type of target. But my experience is that if I set too low a standard, I'm pretty well guaranteed not to get very far. I guess that does prevents disappointment, but for me, it's a bit of a hollow feeling.

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 20 May 2015 2:42 pm

Right on, Dave. Aim higher. The world needs more greatness n music.

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 20 May 2015 2:43 pm

Technical accuracy is great, and necessary for a conscious interpretation to get through to the audience.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 20 May 2015 3:07 pm

If you aspire to mediocrity, odds are good that you will achieve it.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 20 May 2015 3:09 pm

... and you'll never be disappointed...

Curt Trisko · Post by **Curt Trisko** » 20 May 2015 3:39 pm

Jamie Mitchell wrote:so you're saying you're not really vibing on this, but if he had just threw in a few boners, it woulda been perfect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZrrM8sXR70

It's really good, but it won't get stuck in my head. That's what I'm talking about.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 20 May 2015 4:31 pm

Curt Trisko wrote:
Jamie Mitchell wrote:so you're saying you're not really vibing on this, but if he had just threw in a few boners, it woulda been perfect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZrrM8sXR70
It's really good, but it won't get stuck in my head. That's what I'm talking about.

Do you think that's because it's "too perfect", or is it perhaps that you like other kinds of music/performing-style/whatever better? Sometimes I find it hard to categorically state exactly why I prefer one thing to another.

Hey, I know plenty of people that get turned on by stuff that just seems totally pedestrian to me. A lot of my blues guitar player buddies really just like a different style of steel (and other instrument) playing than I do. It's not "right" or "wrong" - stylistic preferences are just that. But for me, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there are "mistakes" in the playing. Mistakes are mistakes - sometimes they seriously detract, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they add something. Sometimes they can even add a lot. To me, one of the marks of a "great" performer is being sufficiently agile to come up smelling like roses no matter what they play, mistakes and all.

When I first started playing pedal steel (after over 30 years of playing guitar), I was with a band that was recording quite a bit and they wanted steel. So that stuff is still out there. I even listen to it sometimes. Some is dreadful, but by accident, some of it actually came out OK, and it still sounds OK to me. And it's even sometimes hard for me to really replicate that vibe - I guess ignorance is bliss. But I wouldn't want to go back, no way.

Les Cargill · Post by **Les Cargill** » 20 May 2015 4:49 pm

Seat time is all to the good, but there is no substitute for situational awareness and learning to be part of an ensemble.

Those are much harder than playing clean or playing fast. Drummer ends up late right before a signature part; now you gotta reinvent it on the spot.

In real life, it's just either massive experience or rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. And, frankly, that is just about money, or it's about the ability of people to take direction and understand the details.

Do the same set for a month on the road and you won't have any trouble with it.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 20 May 2015 4:58 pm

When the playing is so tight, it leaves no room for the listener's imagination.

In my lengthy experience, I have determined that the average listener doesn't have a great deal of imagination.

Many of our most beloved musicians have plenty of incurable imperfections in their music, but then compensate for it by refining other aspects of their playing to an incredible degree. Think of Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, B.B. King, etc. In fact, these are the type of musicians that are held up as being transcendent instead of just being extremely proficient.

I love Willie, but I don't think I've ever considered his guitar playing anywhere near "transcendent.."

Curt Trisko · Post by **Curt Trisko** » 20 May 2015 5:36 pm

What I'm getting at is that when I hear a really tight performance of a good song, I think "oh that's really nice" and then I might never think of it again. But if there's glimpses of things like tuning issues or a stuttered rhythm... so long as it's not altogether un-musical, it turns my brain on. Not only imagining what they should have been, but maybe also even imagining how they could fit in musically just the way they are. I guess the concepts of tension and resolution explain a lot of what I'm talking about. I have a high tolerance for tension in music so long as it resolves.

But I don't really care for jazz.... go figure.

Jamie Mitchell · Post by **Jamie Mitchell** » 21 May 2015 1:51 am

Curt Trisko wrote: It's really good, but it won't get stuck in my head. That's what I'm talking about.

you mean that incredibly catchy melody?
it's opera...

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 21 May 2015 5:02 pm

Curt Trisko wrote:What I'm getting at is that when I hear a really tight performance of a good song, I think "oh that's really nice" and then I might never think of it again. But if there's glimpses of things like tuning issues or a stuttered rhythm... so long as it's not altogether un-musical, it turns my brain on. Not only imagining what they should have been, but maybe also even imagining how they could fit in musically just the way they are.

Could it be that you relate to this kind of music because it's closer to what you do, or are capable of doing? Not being judgemental...just sayin'. (I don't think I've ever played anything "perfect" in my whole life.)

About 30-odd years ago, a friend bought me the soundtrack from the Olivia Newton-John movie "Xanadu". Okay, so it was schmaltzy, cutesy, bubble-gummy sort of stuff. But...that band was just so friggin' tight, I was astounded! Man, all those punches and accents they did had this micro-precision you just don't hear very often. Creds to the drummer and bassman, whoever they were, they were amazing. Yeah, I'm weird - so only listen to this if you're equally weird, too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBf9g68kLz0

Curt Trisko · Post by **Curt Trisko** » 21 May 2015 5:52 pm

Donny Hinson wrote:Could it be that you relate to this kind of music because it's closer to what you do, or are capable of doing? Not being judgemental...just sayin'. (I don't think I've ever played anything "perfect" in my whole life.)

That could be.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 21 May 2015 6:16 pm

I remember my first experience of hearing Buddy's "Black Album". I was dumbstruck at the utter perfection displayed therein. Every note exactly where it needed to be, as though no other option could have ever been possible. And tone to die for. I could hardly believe that all this was achieved by a human being. It set the goalpost for my entire career as a steel guitarist and as a musician in general. I'll never get close to that goalpost, but it sure has been helpful to know that it's there.

Curt Trisko · Post by **Curt Trisko** » 21 May 2015 8:20 pm

Jim Cohen wrote:I was dumbstruck at the utter perfection displayed therein. Every note exactly where it needed to be, as though no other option could have ever been possible.

Maybe that's it... too predictable. I remember feeling the same way about his version of Wichita Lineman. I wouldn't change a thing.

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 21 May 2015 9:08 pm

you mean it's exactly the way it is?

The Steel Guitar Forum

Playing so tight that no room is left for the imagination

Playing so tight that no room is left for the imagination

Re: Playing so tight that no room is left for the imaginatio