Perfection or feeling?

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

I’m not sure what people mean by “feel.” . . .

My guess it's Mike's shorthand for playing with feeling.

[Silly Moustache]

Are we talking about guitars, or playing them?

With guitars I tend to play Collings which are as near to perfection as I have seen in practical terms, but, really, nothing is "perfect".

Whilst I'm not into "reliced" stuff, if I found a tatty looking old guitar that suited my hands and ears to perfection. That'd be fine.

Feel or perfection in playing/singing. I'm old, my hands are arthritic and affected by old wounds and operations, likewise, my voice in now compromised by cancer treatment damage, but when I sing and play a song or play a piece, it is the "feel" that is the priority.

I NEVER try to emulate the singing or playing of anyone else. For the 3--5 minutes of a song performance, regardless of who wrote it - that song is MY story and I'll tell it as effectively or emotionally as I can.

Soooo, maybe I'll vote for "feel"

[mike o]

Correct. 3rd grade was rough for me

Originally Posted by Charlie Bernstein

My guess it's Mike's shorthand for playing with feeling.

[mr. beaumont]

Perfection is unattainable, but it cannot even be approached without feel.

For example, take a classical guitarist. Getting the notes "perfect" is actually only the beginning...

As for what feel is, I think it's mostly how the notes themselves are played. The tone production from the hands...the duration, the notes placement in relationship to the beat. That's feel.

What I don't think it is, is the silly melodramatic "emotion" players talk about. Like rock players when they say a player has so much "emotion" in their playing, when it really just means they bend notes in a minor pentatonic scale.

[mike o]

Is see a lot of folks here on AGF who focus on perfection. So much so that it stops them from playing in front of other people. It is a very rare case where IMO a perform in a master at both. Take Stevie Ray Vaughn for one example. No one can deny that he was both perfection and feeling. Flip side, take Neil Young during his electric guitar days mid 80’s. I wouldn’t say his guitar work was perfection but he played with tons of feeling. Shoot, he would hang on one note for 30 seconds and make it work.

Perfection and feeling do go together and both part of playing music. Maybe the difference is trying to play correctly vs. performing music? Feel to me is when the music moves you. Not the words but music.

[mike o]

I 100% agree with you.

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Perfection is unattainable, but it cannot even be approached without feel.

For example, take a classical guitarist. Getting the notes "perfect" is actually only the beginning...

As for what feel is, I think it's mostly how the notes themselves are played. The tone production from the hands...the duration, the notes placement in relationship to the beat. That's feel.

What I don't think it is, is the silly melodramatic "emotion" players talk about. Like rock players when they say a player has so much "emotion" in their playing, when it really just means they bend notes in a minor pentatonic scale.

[mike o]

I’m with you Bret. I still perform on bass goin on about 45 years. Lots of soul, funk, Motown and so on music over the years. So, is feel more of a rhythmic thing?

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Being a slave to the groove, I don't "feel" that perfection is possible without getting the feel right.
Full disclosure: I was a bass player first, and I still do that for money.
So i guess my vote is Feel.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by Charlie Bernstein

My guess it's Mike's shorthand for playing with feeling.

"Feeling," to me, is expressiveness. "Feel," on the other hand, is groove/pocket/time. I'm a fan of both, but maybe more so the latter.

[KevWind]

[rllink]

One thing, I'm happy with being mediocre. I strive for upper mediocre, not lower mediocre, but none the less, perfect is not something I feel an urge to strive for. I have found mediocre to be more attainable and therefore much more satisfying than failing at perfection.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

IÂ’m not sure what people mean by “feel.” I’m used to hearing it in the context of explaining why a person/band doesn’t play a piece the way it was originally or is usually performed. Also used in the context of explaining why they’re better off by not knowing any theory, or how to read charts/music.

“Perfection” may mean playing note-for-note like the original or as written. To me it means I played it precisely as I intended to.

Oh dear.... That's me!

I'm sort of limited to interpreting the "gist" of a song when I cover it. I physically can't perform a note for note copy of the original, but I do steal elements from the original.

I'm limited by my left hand - amputation of part of the index finger. So that takes out barre chords, some other chord shapes, and stretches. I play purely acoustically, just mic'd for gigs, and use lots of hammer-ons and pull-off to fill out my simple chord shapes; so I run heavier strings and a higher action. Therefore, I don't play up the neck - everything is around the nut or capo (I use a capo on every fret up to the 7th with my present song list).

My voice is inevitably better in a key away from the original tune I'm covering. So I will often be arranging a song from a different root chord shape. If the original song has a strong riff behind it (eg White Frieghtliner Blues, Dancing in the Dark, Tenessee Stud) my arrangement will give the feel of that but often can't directly copy the original because of how I have to perform it to fit my vocal range.

Overall, I would say that I create arrangements for songs that are distinctly not perfect reproductions - but they work because they maintain the feel of the song.

And sometimes I deliberately go completely off-piste and will perform a cover in a completely different style. But there will always be something in there that gives that recognisable feel of the song.

... Also used in the context of explaining why they’re better off by not knowing any theory, or how to read charts/music.

That's me too! Never bothered to learn how to read guitar Tab or guitar sheet music - and couldn't tell you what notes I'm playing on guitar without working it out. But I can hear intervals and chords; know if something is major, minor or mixolidian; and I can sing harmony in a duet or band on the fly - which is an infinitely more useful skill for me than being able to read guitar music /tab.

[cdkrugjr]

I reject the dichotomy.

Yul Brennen told a story of his friend Itzak Pearlman:

“I asked Itzak to play a note, which he did.”

“I then asked him to play the exact same note. He stared at his bow for a few seconds and said ‘Damm you!’”

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by mike o

Which is more important to you and why? No wrong answers. Perfection vs. Feeling

Hi mike o…

Long answer…
Nothing like the sterility of a mechanically perfect performance without 'feel' to it to put people to sleep.

I attend a guitar 'society' which meets monthly and we have players from every genre (really) and we sit in a large circle and play round-robin style for each other.

There are a couple technically perfect players who play off classical scores and are letter perfect. Their music is unmoving.

ON the other hand, we have a couple grassers and a couple creative song writers who we love to hear. They are often trying out new stuff…far from perfect performance, but always a fun listen!

And we have some who folk, fingerstyle, grassers, who are technically proficient who dominate the popularity in the room. The group is always glad to see them show up.

A relevant 'Personal' story…
A few years back there was a young man who played fabulous classical at the group, and I invited him to bring his guitar and we'd do a duet (unrehearsed) at a local coffee house where we were playing frequently. The only place he 'performed' for others had been in the guitar group.

He showed up (surprised me) and we did a piece I'd heard him play 3 or 4 times. It went really well as I did the second (harmonizing and complimentary parts) behind his classical piece. My gigging partner and close friend play in a duo where we alternate between one takin the lead, and other filling in as a second guitarists harmonizing and supporting the one with lead.

The classical player and I did a wonderful piece which sounded really great. He was amazed that it worked and asked "How do you know what to play?" I responded "I just listened to the chords and your lead, and filled the holes in your arrangement".

He then asked "What chords?" Even though he'd played for over 20 years, he had no clue that many of his best arrangements was chord-ally based. I find this true of many serious classical players.

They are note and score driven, and not aware of the chords which under-gird and drive many a great classical composition. They don't analyze what they play…the goal is to note-perfect.

[rllink]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi mike o…

Long answer…
Nothing like the sterility of a mechanically perfect performance without 'feel' to it to put people to sleep.

I attend a guitar 'society' which meets monthly and we have players from every genre (really) and we sit in a large circle and play round-robin style for each other.

There are a couple technically perfect players who play off classical scores and are letter perfect. Their music is unmoving.

ON the other hand, we have a couple grassers and a couple creative song writers who we love to hear. They are often trying out new stuff…far from perfect performance, but always a fun listen!

And we have some who folk, fingerstyle, grassers, who are technically proficient who dominate the popularity in the room. The group is always glad to see them show up.

A relevant 'Personal' story…
A few years back there was a young man who played fabulous classical at the group, and I invited him to bring his guitar and we'd do a duet (unrehearsed) at a local coffee house where we were playing frequently. The only place he 'performed' for others had been in the guitar group.

He showed up (surprised me) and we did a piece I'd heard him play 3 or 4 times. It went really well as I did the second (harmonizing and complimentary parts) behind his classical piece. My gigging partner and close friend play in a duo where we alternate between one takin the lead, and other filling in as a second guitarists harmonizing and supporting the one with lead.

The classical player and I did a wonderful piece which sounded really great. He was amazed that it worked and asked "How do you know what to play?" I responded "I just listened to the chords and your lead, and filled the holes in your arrangement".

He then asked "What chords?" Even though he'd played for over 20 years, he had no clue that many of his best arrangements was chord-ally based. I find this true of many serious classical players.

They are note and score driven, and not aware of the chords which under-gird and drive many a great classical composition. They don't analyze what they play…the goal is to note-perfect.

Kind of back to the same premise when the question is asked, can you read music. Those who can't are great players and those who can't aren't. So are we saying here that the more proficient one becomes, the less feeling they are able to convey to their audience. That proficiency holds us back?

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by rllink

Those who can't are great players and those who can't aren't. So are we saying here that the more proficient one becomes, the less feeling they are able to convey to their audience. That proficiency holds us back?

This isn't directed at you, or Lj, as neither of you actually posed this premise-- but the "proficiency holds us back" concept is dumb guitar player talk, created to help people feel better about not knowing their instrument. It's utter and complete hogwash.