The School of Feedback Guitar Blog

This is the final part of a three part series on Genres and Creativity. This post is about better understanding how genres and originality really just want to pick a fist-fight with each other.

Read the rest of this post »

This post is part two of a three part series on Genres and Creativity. This post is about what can happen to a band that chooses a genre first, and then creates music to fit it. This post also gives a clear example about what happened to a band that played music first and didn't care how it was received.

Read the rest of this post »

When you think of the musical genre commonly known as Funk, who is the quintessential funk artist? In my opinion, no one is quite as funky as James Brown. The question that piques my interest is which came first: James Brown or the genre commonly referred to as Funk? Seriously think about this for a second. Which came first: The artist's music that defined what we commonly refer to as "funk," or the name of the genre? This could be a silly thought, but I highly doubt James Brown meditated on music one day and decided: "I hereby name a new style of music called 'Funk,' and I have decided to write an entire body of work that typifies this new style, even though I've not even dived into it yet." I am also highly suspicious of anyone who says that he did.

Going on the assumption that James Brown didn't originally state that his music was Funk, who did? If he had nothing to do with the naming of the genre "Funk Music," who on earth did and WHY? I also feel the same way about any genre, as it were. Metal, folk, etc.

I am a tad weary of how music can commonly be described by genre. It kind of bothers me. "It's a combonation of Shoegazing Britpop with a touch of Psych thrown in." So, is what this basically means is that you marry My Bloody Valentine with Blur, and throw in a little dash of The Magical Mystery Tour? The reason my eyes start to glaze over when music is described this way is because I am really thinking, "Oh, it won't sound anything like the picture I have in my head."

Why do people use genres to describe music? Simply to better explain a band's music to another person. Communication. Connection. Critics love genres too. Genres help them communicate their ideas of what a band's music can be compared to, presumably to help the listener become informed about the music they want to buy. People who depend upon using genres to describe music however are put in their place when a band completely transcends these labels.

If you were to give Radiohead a genre, what would fit best? Rock and Roll? Perhaps in the case of OK Computer but not in the case of Idioteque. Electronic then? Perhaps in the case of Kid A but not in the case of Videotape. Interesting thought isn't it? It's great because all of their albums stand out as something different. I like every single one of them because each has it's own signature. Radiohead never stopped experimenting, and somehow they've always seemed to find their way. The fascinating part is that I think that neither Radiohead with In Rainbows (or The Beatles with Sgt. Pepper) had the foresight to pick a genre first and create the music to fit that genre. I have a strong hunch that they would find that incredibly constricting. Basically, I think they pick music over genre.

In the next blog post, I am going to steer the discussion to the way bands operate in regards to genres. A central question: What happens when bands pick a genre first, and then create the music to fit that genre?

What does it mean to play guitar correctly anyways? I propose that if you can answer yes to the following two questions, you are playing guitar correctly:

1. Are you pain-free when you play?
2. Are you having fun?

The first question is a bit elusive. Good technique is different for every single person who decides to pick up the guitar. What works for one person doesn't neccesarily work for another. Consider this little gem I like to harp on guitar teachers about: "Place your thumb on the back of the neck of the guitar at all times." The trouble with this advice is that it doesn't work with everyone, especially the ones with longer thumbs. If people with longer thumbs always placed their thumb on the back of the neck, their wrist would be bent on a number of occasions (a precursor to tendonitis if ever I saw one). I personally have seen student after student respond best to having a strait wrist:

The more I try to play without pain, the more it ends up being more enjoyable.

The second question is also an elusive one. "Are you having fun?" This is a really good question that I'll ask my students sometimes, especially if they are frustrated! If the fun still out-weighs the frustration, we're in good shape. If not, I have some serious work to do. Guitar ought to be fun. If it weren't, then why play it at all? Why take lessons? Why try to do it? Why? It'd be just another expensive hobby.

The trouble with musicians is that many of us over-complicate why we do music, and that unfortunately transfers to everyone else who wants a piece of the action. There doesn't need to be some huge burden, a heavy philosophy that we must shoulder in order to play guitar. Neither do we need to be weighed down with the idea that our contributions to guitar aren't worth it ("so why try?"). No. We all have something to give to guitar, as long as we're doing it without chronic pain and we're having fun with it. That's my two cents, at least.

Teaching is fun because I learn just as much, if not more, than the student I am helping. It's true. I guess this is the sort of learning that can't be done in a classroom, as I am learning more about people in general. Through years of building my school, I finally figured out that I learn the most from being present in that moment, even if it's hard. That might not always be very fun, but it is neccesary. The student appreciates it none-the-less.

I have this personal enemy that I like to call The Autopilot Mode. Autopilot Mode is what happens where I am only concerned with getting the student to learn something about the guitar or music. There is something deeply wrong with approaching lessons with the notion that the teacher loads the student up with information. There is potential for so much more for both! Like many musicians say, there is more to music than the dots on the page.

Every person out there wants someone to relate to. It's part of who we are and it's part of what makes us human. By staying present regardless of what is going on, a teacher will more often than not find that the student stays present as well. It's an odd thing, but the less of an autopilot I am, then the more enjoyable time it is, for both.

As the title of this blog suggests, the mindset a person gets into when strumming a guitar is analogous to Harry Houdini. We sort of dissapear into the music, and magically reappear after the song is done. The more that time stops when you or I are playing guitar, the more fun it probably was. Even more so, perhaps we become like Guitarzan.