on occasion i’ve heard people say to the comment that so and so has good technique: ‘but do they have soul?’
based on all the great players i’ve had the privilege of meeting or seeing in concert i think the two go hand in hand
i don’t think that all the soul in the world is any good without good technique, but i would add the caveat that technique should serve the music and not be the end itself
any thoughts?
ok I’ll make an idiot outta myself since no-one knows me
pop guitar=can have scads of soul, little technique and be really successful
Uilleann piping=can have lotsa soul, but if there’s not technique gained through solid practice habits/instruction, the result is…less than good pipering
So far, I’m living proof(on Uilleann pipes)
I can rock the guitar thing
I once knew a girl (as an aquaintance, I never, you know, “knew” her) who was a classically trained flautist. I played with her for a while (played music, seriously, get it out of the gutter, we were both over 18 and always had at least three feet on the floor), anyway, I played music with her for a while, and whilst she could sight read most anything and play it as written, she had no ability to improvise a tune or pick up something by ear. (Yes, I know ears don’t pick things up, that’s what our fingers are for, but bear with me here.) She also was unable to learn a tune and play it without her ‘dots’.
I, on the other hand, (or ear, if you wish to continue with this farce) have never endured any formal musical training of any kind, and struggle at the best of times to convert written music into something aural. However, I find that I am almost always able to pick up a tune by ear alone, I can readily adapt and improvise on the go, and once I have learned a tune, I never look at the sheet music again.
So, what the hell was the point of this diatribe?
Um…
Ok. She had technique coming out of her ears (fingers?), but (IMHO) it didn’t serve her well in her musical endeavours, because she was never able to overcome the necessary constraints that said technique imposed upon her. The means became the end.
My approach was more organic (and involvement was at my own behest and initiative) in the sense that the technique I have used/developed over my own journey has served my musical expression as a means to an end.
And now, I’m learning to play (play seems insufficient, I need a better adjective - explore? endure? exploit? abuse? deploy? manipulate? discharge?) the uilleann pipes. So what does that say about me?
Cheers,
Paragon.
Erm ..nothing much. 
Its a bit of a falsehood tae think that somehow NOT being able tae read music is magicaly superior to being able tae read the dots.I think if ye sit down and just read the music and play it then whit ye will get is whit it says on the sheet.Bye and large it should be pleasant cos that is whit it is intended.If however ye sit down and play the same piece having memorised it then that too can be pleasant.So no difference there.Love a piece o music enough and ye will transform it to that other level some o ye called soul.But I prefer harmony in tune or the Golden Ratio.Much is said about he or she is a this or that piper.Whit tosh.By whose standard are we saying this.If it sounds good then it is .Techniques are embellishments which some folk will like others will not..It matters not one iota.I am no better and no worse than anyone else I am just me.Many a critic would do well tae remember .
Where did I suggest that reading dots is superior? 
The point of my example was to demonstrate that the pursuit of pure technique became the pinnacle of achievement for my friend, and whilst that has some merit, I feel that she had lost something because of it. She never took the next step of the musical experience, using her skills to explore where the music could take her. She got stuck in the ‘classic’ mentality of “… those are the notes, that is how it must be played for it to be ‘right’…” Her playing could be described as technically perfect as much as mechanical and boring. As a fellow musician I despair at this as I wonder what she could have accomplished, if only.
So, to return to John’s initial point, technique should serve the music and not be the end itself. If the musician can’t use their skills to put something of themselves into what they’re doing, what’s the point?
I have the feeling that we are all furiously agreeing with each other.
Every time i think about technique, soul and stuff… I go and listen to Yo-Yo Ma playing the Cello suites.
A Chinese Guy playing German Music on an Italian Instrument with incredible technique and the unbelievable beauty of the Music shines through every single phrase.
Or, for the more Jazz-minded, listen to Charlie Parker tells a lot about Soul and technique
Sure they can read the dots and sure they play a lot more than one can read on the Paper.
Learning the Technique makes you able to speak, but if you have nothing to say…..
Even being able to play top notch on a first-class Fullset is nothing more than blabla.
IMHO
Thomas
summed it up right there so ya did John…
gotta have the technique to bring the soul out;
gotta have the soul to support the technique.
gonna avoid the “literacy vs. aural” debate, but say that reading & listening together is greater than the sum of its parts.
I have to agree, that John’s question answers itself – obviously it’s balance between technique and expression/improvisation that matters. Just what that “correct” balance is, as Uilliam inimitably puts it, is highly personal.
Anyhow, I’ve got my flame-retardant undies on, and have to comment on the dots-versus-ear thing. I get Paragon’s point that the lady he knew was hung up on literal reading in a way that was to some extent specific to her (though he implies this is an artifact of “technique” as defined by classical training).
Anyone who’s had good classical training knows that’s not how it’s supposed to work, ever. So I would not consider Paragon’s acquaintance to represent anything but the stupidest notion of “technique.”
A good sight-reader doesn’t just play the notes. He or she plays expressively, adding unwritten dynamics, articulations, and tempo changes as seems appropriate, even on their very first reading of a tune. Who would recite Hamlet’s soliloquy in a monotone, ever, even reading it from a book?
And would any of us have even heard of Shakespeare if he hadn’t bothered to write his stuff down? Just as technique-versus-soul is not an “either/or” (binary) question, neither should “reading versus listening” be.
As a teenager Seamus Ennis learned his initial repertoire mostly from O’Neill’s collections; Patsy Touhey probably couldn’t read a note. Who was “greater” and what does it matter? Only the end result is important!
Most of us start out more comfortable with one or the other (reading or ear-training). But it’s just as silly to deny yourself the pleasure of trying out 10 new pieces from “Pipe-Friendly Tunes” in one sitting, as it is to forgo the social, cultural, and musical benefits of learning tunes the traditional, aural way, from hearing other musicians play (even via recordings).
Cheers,
Mick
So true, and so mis-understood by many.
I have recordings of several violinists playing Bach’s works for solo violin. Just for kicks I dropped two into audacity, one panned left, and one right. It’s no surprise that they were different, but I really wasn’t prepared for how different they were.
brendan mulkere, the london-based irish music teacher of the last 30 odd years, gives out sheet music to his students but always tells them just to use the dots to get the idea of the tune and to dispense with it as soon as possible and learn to ‘turn’ the tune (like a craftsman ‘turns’ a piece of wood) according to their own personality
what i find myself is that i can get a good idea of standard version of tune from the sheet music but then i might hear it in a slightly altered form and struggle to learn by ear the alternative version
How should I know I am not a mind reader…where did I suggest that it was YOU that suggested it or anything else ? …another misreading o ma posts…I was taking the question a stage further thats all, no reference to ye or yoor post …Except yoor very last question which I responded to in ma first 3 words…
A smart-arse response not fitting in an adult conversation. If your intention in this reply was to explain your previous post, starting it with this aggression was a poor choice.
“where did I suggest that it was YOU that suggested it or anything else ?”
By responding immediately after my post, and by answering an obviously rhetorical question from my post in your first three words. Where did you suggest that you were doing anything but referencing directly to my post, either by word, subject, tone, or even formatting?
“…another misreading o ma posts…”
If this happens often, then perhaps you should assess if the problem lies with the rest of the world, or if it is with yourself. As has been noted by others in other topic-strings, the ease of which typed communication in forums such as this can be mis-interpreted is apparent, and here it seems we have a perfect case yet again.
I come to this forum for discussion and information, not arguments.
I too often find this to be the equation:
technique + speed ≠ soul.
Don’t like blistering piping no matter how much technique is behind it.
FWIW
tommykleen
Stop Raging Perleez..I do think that ye should re read my post …I am not refering to ye at all except my reply in the1st 3 words..Ye posed the question and I answered.The rest is a developement of the thread which is quite normal.
I thought twas a contribution tae discussion and information.I am afraid the argument bit is coming frae yoo.
Not nice either…
Especially after me trying tae help ye oot with yoor earlier post regarding yoor intended purchase o the set ye now have,or had ye forgotten that?That was not a rhetorical positer.
I also quote ye frae the 5 July a mere 2 weeks ago…
"I love the quirkyness that is evident in some of the posts here - to borrow a phrase, uilleann pipers march to the beat of a different drum. 
Thanks,
Paragon."
That didnae last too lang now did it.
So rather than labour yoor obvious misunderstanding as yesel has pointed oot!.. Pleeeez Peace oot bro. 
or better still go and play yoor new set which will be far more rewarding than all this this tosh yoor giving oot.Anyways leave me be as I am tired o this unless ye want some genuine help wi sumfin. ..
Thank you (sincere, not sarcastic), Uilliam, for teaching me a life-lesson on communication. Your previous posts in other threads were not forgotten. I shall take your sound advice and concentrate my efforts at playing the pipes.
My apologies to John for the inadvertent hijacking of this thread.
Best wishes to you all,
Paragon.
Glad thats sorted oot ..enjoy yoor set.