A huge proportion of musicians that are revered and respected have a unique or unorthodox technique. There are countless examples: Wes Montgomery playing guitar with only one digit, Hendrix with his thumb over the neck, Vladimir Horowitz's wrist position, or Meg White's way of setting up the drums. Doing things differently is almost the norm.
Often these techniques are unergonomic, uneconomical and, in the eyes of many teachers, simply ‘wrong’.
I've made a career out of playing the guitar in unorthodox ways, and I know first-hand how playing an instrument differently can offer huge benefits. But I've also experienced, to my surprise, how negatively this can be viewed by other music educators.
I often wonder how many original and authentic voices have been stifled by a tutor guiding a student away from the unorthodox and towards the ‘standard’ approach? How many unique and wonderful sounds has the world missed out on because of the idea of ‘good technique’?
In this article and accompanying episode of The Music Education Podcast, I will be looking at how we might be able to support and nurture unique approaches in a measured system. I've called upon the help of my friend and fellow unorthodox musician Jon Hart – a guitarist and singer-songwriter whose unique approach has helped him carve a powerful career.
The good and the bad
There is, of course, a reason ‘good’ technique is taught. It is usually both economical and efficient: economical as far as energy is concerned, and efficient in the sense that it makes it easier to play music that is already in existence. In some instances, ‘good’ technique can also be ergonomic and reduce the risk of injury.
Bad technique, on the other hand, is usually considered to be anything that deviates from this ‘good’ technique. ‘Good technique is good for you’ is the general consensus; however, a short examination of the technique of many contemporary musicians that we know and love quickly shows that good technique is not as common among successful artists as we might think. Moreover, their unique approaches might be partly responsible for how they sound.
When we employ unique approaches, we create unique outcomes, or tonal and harmonic differences. For example, a different bow hold might produce a different tone; setting up a drum-kit differently might make you choose alternate drums for certain beats; and playing guitar with two fingers might make you choose certain types of rhythms. Put simply, look at the instrument differently and you will see different things.
Hart often plays his guitar ‘percussively’. He describes to me how his approach invites him to hear other instruments: ‘The body of the guitar becomes the congas, the grain becomes the guiro, the strings become cymbals, the harmonics become bells, and the strings at the headstock become chimes. Seeing past the “standard” invites us to invent, innovate and adopt unorthodox methods, sounds, textures and tones.’
Even if your approach is physically limiting, the things you might stumble upon could be impossible with ‘good’ technique, or might simply be more unique and more inspiring. I don't see Hart's guitar percussion coming from what we'd regard as ‘good’ technique; the wrist positions and the digits he uses are simply not part of what would be taught in a standard guitar lesson delivering ‘good’ technique.
The brave tutor
As a teacher, allowing a student to use a technique which you haven't used before takes courage. It also takes courage allowing a student to discern what they want to create and to allow them to fail.
The reality is that you and the student have no idea if holding a bow slightly differently, arranging the drum-kit differently, playing guitar just with a thumb, or playing piano from the wrist rather than the fingers will be a collision course or an enlightening adventure to new and exciting lands. Unorthodox approaches come with risk.
Eventually, the student may want to go back and change their technique when they realise the limitations, or they may even hit a brick wall and give up. At the very least, it could delay the progression you had planned.
According to Hart, however, exploring is the key to musical success: ‘I've made a million mistakes to achieve a sense of freedom on guitar. That freedom has led me past learning into exploration and experimentation. But this doesn't have to take years. A 50/50 approach of learning and exploration could be achieved from day one.’
I think what Hart is suggesting is a trade-off: 50% more directed learning, perhaps even of ‘good’ technique, and 50% of absolute freedom to explore. With regards to a grade exam, this will still carry some kind of delayed progress when it comes to being measured against a standardised idea of what is ‘good’ technique; however, this might be the compromise that stops a tutor from quashing originality.
One of the fundamental reasons tutors push for ‘good’ technique is time and measurement; the rush to progress on the scale of what we regard as ‘good’ technique. Grading systems won't usually look favourably at a unique approach; they often don't have the capacity to award uniqueness. Our entire culture and education system is based on progress, and progress has to be measured somehow. Risky deviations down unknown paths are not for the faint-hearted, but perhaps with Hart's 50/50 approach we can allow originality to flourish in our current education systems.
Having ownership
If you still need convincing that allowing and encouraging unorthodox approaches can be positive, then consider for a moment the element of ownership. The most common frustration of any instrumental tutor is their students' frequency of practice, which, of course, is directly linked to students' ownership of their instrument and music-making.
If a student arrives at an approach on their own, isn't that an opportunity for them to have ownership of their playing and to develop a real passion and feeling of connection? A drive to play, and even practise?
Referring to either learning ‘good’ technique or exploring the instrument with complete freedom, Hart describes how the exploration element offers him more identity and drive: ‘Connection is the biggy here. If I'm connected to my instrument, I'm then passionate, dedicated and driven, which ramps up accountability, integrity and identity. I suggest that a student tries both ways to see which achieves the best results.’
The composer
Much of music education works on the presumption that being able to play music that has come before is a musician’s main priority. As has been discussed in this magazine and in thousands of music teacher conversations, composing and creating is often seen as a skill that is additional to being a ‘musician’.
The reality is that for most musicians outside the Western classical realm, creating or composing to some degree is an integral part of being a musician. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that many believe these are one and the same. So, if creating something is integral to a musician's very being, then technique surely should be in service to creating rather than recreating.
‘Good technique’ is good for recreating. Beyond that, it really is simply another approach, neither good nor bad. On the other hand, unorthodox approaches, or ‘new approaches and techniques’, create new opportunities – essentially ‘bad’ at recreating but uniquely brilliant at creating.
While deviating from ‘good technique’ might close some doors, it might open some new ones. The technique of re-tuning is an excellent example of this in action. Hart and I both use altered tunings to compose music. For those that don't know, the guitar is usually tuned EADGBE, and an altered tuning is anything besides this, for example CGCGCD or BGBEAD. It is a unique choice. This simple technique places notes in different places, and through exploration and play you can find new harmonies and sounds. ‘That's where a lot of my ideas, songs and compositions have come from’, admits Hart.
We both do this every song or two, and when we get comfortable with the tuning, we change it again. A comparative example for a non-stringed instrument might be reconfiguring percussion tunings or changing finger positions so that notes are in different places.
This re-tuning technique, like a lot of unorthodox approaches, seems completely illogical and uneconomical. But the rewards are huge from a composition perspective.
A question to ask yourself
Ultimately, I think whether we allow students to explore unique approaches comes down to a simple question that we must ask ourselves as educators: Do you believe all your students have the potential to create something powerfully unique and beautiful without using your method?
For me, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I believe the job of a tutor is not simply to equip students with tools and knowledge to re-create, but instead to support and encourage a student to create without the limitations of what our perceptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are. I think Hart's 50/50 approach could be the key to bringing this into action.
Listen to this article's accompanying episode of The Music Education Podcast, hosted by Chris Woods: themusiceducationpodcast.buzzsprout.comMusic Teacher is a media partner of The Music Education Podcast.
