What is a musician?

According to Google:

a person who plays a musical instrument, especially as a profession, or is musically talented.

According to the Merrian-Webster dictionary:

a composer, conductor, or performer of music especially: Instrumentalist

There are many variations on this, but nearly all say a musician is a person who plays a musical instrument. I don’t think this gives a true picture of a musician. It is only a superficial explanation.

Many see a musician and remark about how ‘gifted’ or ‘talented’ they are as if that is all one needs to be a musician. Just have the ‘gift’ and you can play. Not so.

A search for the word ‘talent’ yields interesting results. Realize that definitions are only a reflection of how a word is used in society. Some definitions say it is a special aptitude. Some say it is a natural ability to do something well. One I read says it is a marked innate ability as for artistic accomplishment. Innate means inborn or natural.

Realizing there are people such as Savants that have an almost supernatural ability in a specific area such as math, music or other, the average musician is just like you and me. They may have an aptitude for something. We all have aptitudes. Some folks have very good dexterity. Some have good abstract reasoning. Some can visualize things like how a room will look after it is decorated with certain colors and such.

I have yet to meet a musician that did not need to work at it. Practice, practice and more practice. Some can play incredibly fast while others cannot. That does not reflect on musicianship but rather it reflects dexterity. Even the musician with great dexterity has to practice techniques to develop the ability to play extremely fast note sequences.

There is talent involved. That is to say a certain amount of physical ability that allows one to play the strings or manipulate the holes and levers of a flute, to simultaneously play rhythms and melodies on a piano or to play various patterns on the various pieces of a drum kit simultaneously. But only in rare cases such as a savant, does on just pick up and instrument and begin playing it.

Think about something such as a guitar. It uses strings and to obtain various pitches and all one needs to do is shorten or lengthen the string. I’ve watched many, many guitar tutorials and I have yet to see one that elaborated on the idea of lengthening and shortening a string to play melodies on a guitar. Is it a special ability to recognizes that pitches rise as you play keys to the right on a piano and lower as you play to the left? Is it a special ability to recognize that some notes sound better together than others? I don’t think it is a ‘special’ ability. It has more to do with intelligence which is simply the ability to take new information, understand it a put it to use.

Play right and you get a higher pitch, play left and you get a lower pitch. Lengthen a string and you get a lower pitch. Shorten a string and you get a higher pitch. All one has to do is find pitches that sound good when played sequentially or as chords and you have music. So a person with reasonable intelligence can learn to play music. The limit they would have is in the area of dexterity mainly and the other would be the ability to think about the notes and remember where certain pitches could be found. One could learn to read music and the need for audiation decreases. Audiation is simply the ability to ‘hear’ sounds in your mind. Maybe a better way to say it is to perceive how a note or chord will sound.

Musicians are simply people that upon encountering music, are impressed enough by it to want to do it – to play an instrument. That is probably every person that encounters music. So there is something different about a musician because not everyone goes on to learn to play an instrument. A musician loves music enough to devote time to it.

I have heard many people say “I just don’t have time enough”. That is absolutely not true. What they are really saying is music is not high enough on their priority list to spend the time to learn it. How many people that “don’t have the time” watch television every day? How many that don’t have the time, play video games or read books? How many spend time on the web with things like Facebook? They do have the time. They simply do not love music enough to set aside time to devote to learning it. Many people will listen to music as they do chores or pursue hobbies like painting. Many will listen to music when the drive. But how many will just put on an album and sit and listen to music? It is a matter of priorities.

The next time you encounter a musician that is ‘talented’, think about the hours, days, weeks or years they spent practicing and learning those skills. It actually enhances the experience in my opinion.

Many have said music is a language without words. Words are simply a collection of sounds that represent an object idea or concept. Emotions are a part of the human experience. Stories, books and such are built around emotions are they not? We see a war movie or read a book about war and what we find are the experiences and emotions of humans in the context of war and all that it is. Ever wonder why they use music in a movie? They are using it to explain the emotional part of the story. They are elaborating on what the actors are feeling as they recite their lines. This is true in every ‘good’ movie. The musician that writes the score for the movie understands emotion and is able to describe it with music. But, it is much more than descriptive. It is immersive. It actually cause us to feel those emotions. Consider violins in a sentimental scene or when we see the pain of losing a friend in a battle situation. When a loved one returns after a prolonged absence. Music not only describes an emotion it evokes the emotion in the listener. Much as certain words can upset us or cause us to be angry or cause us to think fondly of a loved one departed. So we can say that a musician understands the language of emotion and can express and impart those emotions. Some can only play the music while others express the music. It is like the actor that says the lines versus the one that transforms him/her self into the character of the story. You stop seeing the actor and see the character in the story instead.

Musicians then have a different nature than the average person. Not all musicians, but most. Some use music as a tool to reach a goal. I won’t give an example because even sincere musicians have gone to the dark side in the pursuit of mammon. What I am saying is musicians in general are very aware of emotions and the effects of those emotions on the human experience. That is not to say that others can’t or don’t understand deeper things of life, but a musician goes a little further into the understanding. We term it as having a broader or deeper understanding.

Musicians are artists. Just like a painter puts colors on a canvas that captivate us that for a moment in time and takes us to another place, not literally, but we are transported into the world of the picture. We can see the Eagle in flight and almost see from the Eagle’s eyes. We can imagine we are there with all the aromas of the grasses, flowers and trees. The sound of the wind is almost audible. The musician also creates a world – a world of sound. How many of us can hear opening music and know it is about space, a science or science fiction themed story? What about suspense? Can you imagine suspenseful music? Do you feel the suspense when you hear that type of music? So the musician helps to create the emotional portion of movie. But, the musician can also create a picture in your mind and the interesting thing is that we paint to picture based on our understanding of life and the experiences we have had. If you heard a section of music with strong powerful low strings and high strings playing chords with prolonged voicing, would you tend to think of canyons? Maybe a raging sea from a high quieter vantage point? The musician is also a painter of images but we the listener assemble the images from the images of places we have been or seen in pictures.

So we can say of a musician:

They can play an instrument.

They understand emotion and can express and invoke emotion.

They can create a world in our imagination both in sound and imagery.

They are of reasonable intelligence being able to grasp the concepts of music and apply them.

Musicians also have incredible memory. Can you imagine memorizing say 400 short stories word for word? That it what a music does with music. He/she remembers every note of hundreds of songs in sequential order and the keys in which those notes are played and the tempo. Those that rely on sheet music have a different type of mental faculty. That is the ability to see a graphic representation of a note/notes, then extract the duration and pitch and instantly audiate and transfrom the graphics into sound and know where the pitches are located on the instrument of choice and execute while doing the same for the next note. Just the way we read words from one to the next, the musician reads the graphic information and translates it to sound instantaneously enough to keep time and perform the music live. Any one that has ever tried understands the significance of that ability.

Does this make them better than the average person? No in a general sense, but yes in specific senses. But that is true of the mathematician or the chemist or anyone that pursues a specif area of knowldedge.

Many speak of attaining certain levels in musicianship. That some are better than others. The truth of that depends on your perspective. A person that can perform 32^nd notes at 120 bpm is certainly able to play fast. But what about quality? Is every note clean and clear and expressed as 1/32? Quality of playing and speed are two different things. To me, extremely fast notes can be very effective in a piece of music, but if that is all they play, it can get old. I am amazed at the speed of the performance, but content is nearly zero for me. Some can play every note of a given piece correctly including the timing, but it lacks something. It sounds sort of mechanical. While another musician can play the same piece and it sounds better to us. I believe it is the difference between reciting and expressing. Much the same as the two actors. One recites the lines, but the other places themselves in the context of the word and speaks with vocal expression and imparts the emotion and intent of the words. Music is the same. One can express or one can recite.

So when one says musician A is better than musician B, I have to ask better at what? Speed? Quality of notes – ie clear or sloppy with error? Better at expressing the emotion/intent of the music? Better at what?

In my view there are levels, but not like one would normally think of levels.

First there are people that listen to music. It us usually in the background and just sort of fills a space.

Second there are people that listen to music more deeply. They will put on music and sit and listen to it as the main activity of the moment.

Third there a people that express a desire to play music. You hear them all the time. “I wish I could do that.” is a common phrase.

Fourth is the person that loves music enough to learn an instrument. They play recreationally at home, for others or just because they enjoy playing music. They will learn a few chords and mayble pick out some melodies on a guitar or piano.

Fifth is the person that is hungry to learn more, they dedicate time to the study of music and their instrument. They seek to understand the patterns found in all instruments. We call them scales. They seek to understand the difference between playing a pitch and expressing a note. They strive for quality in the performance of notes, striving to play each note clearly and in time understanding that every note in a sequence plays an important role and each note is as important as the next. They want excellence in every aspect of performing music.

Sixth is the musician that delves into the emotion of music and seeks to understand it fully and to express those emotions. Regard for playing fast or slow is only thought of with the impact it will have on expressing the emotion on creating the world that is being created.

Seventh is the musician that seeks to create music. These are the ones, that aren’t satisfied with performing the tunes of others. They can and do perform the music of others because it is necessary in the learning process of music. They are driven by the beauty and the passion for music in creating new music that no one has heard. Anyone that has learned to paint has at some point used another’s painting as learning tool. Maybe there are exceptions, but most will use either another’s painting or a photo of a scene to begin learning form, color and values. The same is true of music. Most instructors will use established music to teach others to play.

This seventh category of musician is those driven to create music and finds the most reward and satisfaction from creating new music.

Notice that I numbered the types of people and how they relate to music. This is not in order from worst to best or vice versa. It is simply a list. Is it better to create music that recite it? Than depends on where you are in the list. I suspect a creator of music would thinks so. I think it is more important to the creator, but I don’t necessarily think is is better. I think it is more of a deeper understanding, love and passion for what music is. We all are creators. It is in the very nature of human existence. Some think of it as the highest level of musicianship. I think of it as the deepest level.

The one thing that marks a musician from the average person is the love of music. They love it enough to set aside time to learn about it and practice their instrument until they can play. Some love it enough to go beyond being able to play. I think that if music is a ‘gift’ as some say, it is ‘given’ to those whose nature is to love and understand the emotional nature of man and that appreciates beauty enough to want to add some to the world.

It is foreign to me to try and decide who is best. To me the ‘better’ musician is the one that reaches me with their music. I cannot know the feelings of a musician so I cannot gauge their love for music. The only measurement I have is to see the fruit of that love and from that I can determine where they fit in the list. One may be a creator and not necessarily be the fastest or deliver the highest quality of performance. Musicians that are not the most skilled have moved me to tears. Some that are obviously skillful at execution have moved me to tears. In my thinking that puts both on the same ‘level’.

So there are some of my thoughts for what they are worth. There are many perspectives in the world. I have met some that don’t care at all about music. I suspect if it were removed from the world they would miss it though. I am not saying right or wrong here, merely sharing my thoughts for what it is worth.

Just wanted to share some thoughts about songwriting I was having over coffee this morning. I tend to be wordy so I apologize in advance. Disclaimer: I am writing this to provoke thinking, not debate. To encourage. Anything that even smells like a put down is purely accidental and not intentional.

You can go to Youtube or Google and type “songwriting”. There are a gazillion people out there all claiming to have special knowledge of how to write a song. Some will concentrate on the chorus. Others concentrate on the hook line. Some will tell you there’s a special way to formulate chord patterns. Some claim having a good grasp of music theory is absolutely essential. I don’t know about all that they claim. I only know my own experience.

I have written literally hundreds of songs. I know I haven’t made the big time so what do I know? I am sure that I know how to write songs. There is an aspect that is to me, the most important of all the “keys”. That is we need to be able to tell a story. Ever watch a singer sing a song and you find yourself caught up? Ever find yourself wiping a tear? It wasn’t the music theory behind the song. It wasn’t the clever chord changes. It wasn’t the way the Ab sounded over the Amaj. That singer told you a story and he either meant it or he knew of the feelings involved and expressed them. Rhonda Larson is one of those musicians that seems to have a direct connection to my tear ducts. There are others. Those are the musicians that I study and the ones I try to learn from.

Music theory is a tool. Being able to play an instrument is using a tool. A hammer is just a hammer. It cannot join two boards. A hammer and saw can’t build a house. It is the carpenter that builds the house. Music theory is much like blueprints, but more like a manual. It doesn’t provide exact instruction for building the house but it might explain why you need certain bracing. It is the carpenters experience from past efforts that enables him to build a house. I can guarantee you his first house was a massive effort. Every one of us starts out wondering what to do with this piece of wood with holes in it. It is a tool. Without you and your creativity, it is just a piece of wood with holes in it. We have to go through the learning phase and become familiar with what this tool does and how to coax some of those sounds out of it.

Theory can explain what a musician did, but it cannot explain where the melody came from. I suppose you could dink around with a scale and find a part that you like and use that melody. Even then, it is the song writer that recognized the beauty or appeal in that piece of the scale. I could go on and on. It is the artist that writes the song. Theory is one of the tools and it is not a requirement to writing a song. I wrote for years without it. Sound was all I needed. I knew how to make chords on the guitar and that helped a lot, but which chord was up to me, not a rule, not the guitar and not music theory.

So what is the answer? What is the secret? What is my “key”? Music invokes emotion. It invokes feelings. It can set a mood. It can agitate you or calm you down. Words can do the same thing. In my opinion you need to tell a story when you write a song. In the case of the flute, you’re not using words. So, if the song is one about sorrow, dwell on what sorrow feels like. Think about people you’ve known that were sad. Think about times you were sad. Why were you sad? What caused it? Make up a story about sadness and then try to express those feelings. Playing 16 notes per bar likely will not invoke the feelings of sadness. Sadness is more of a slow moving sound/feel. If in doubt, find some sad songs and see how other artits “paint” that picture or “tell that story”. Minor keys work well for sad songs. Doesn’t mean major can’t.

I wrote a song called He Shall Not Return. I imagined a Native American Warrior that went on hunt. An angry man killed him without just cause. The fellow hunters were returning home without him. How did they feel? How did his wife feel? That is what I thought about as I begin to play. I had my DAW armed and recording. After a minute or two of “fumbling” a melody and a theme began to emerge. Is it a great song? I like to think so. Have millions clamored to download it? No. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good song?

One more thought. I am a painter. I paint landscapes mostly. I have friends that paint and none of them have asked me what their painting should look like. None have asked me what colors to use. When I paint a picture, I paint what I’m envisioning the finished painting will look like. If I ask a friend what I should paint and how it should look, then I’m effectively trying to paint his picture instead of mine. That’s pretty hard to do. Songs are the same, if you worry about whether or not others will like it, then you are effectively asking them what your song should sound like. You are indeed trying to write their song. Write your song from what you “hear” and give no thought as to whether or not others will like it. Some will and some won’t. If you disagree, then I ask you to pick a successful artist and then research or ask around. I think you’ll find that not everybody likes the artist. Some will and some won’t. If you like your song then that is all that is needed. If others like it, that’s even better. Art comes from the artist. Any other source is a mistake, in my opinion.

Our society suffers from a problem. Everything is either good or bad. It is a very subjective thing when judging art. Just because a movie got bad reviews, doesn’t mean I won’t like it. We become intimidated by the idea that we might get a critical review. Think about a critic for a moment. Don’t they tell you whether a piece of art, a movie or song is good are bad? Isn’t that the same thing as telling you what you should like or will like? Last time I checked I could figure out if I liked something or not. I can decide that for myself. In fact I have seen many movies that had bad review, but I thought they were great. I would have missed them had I let someone else tell me what I should like. I have never understood how a critic can make a living. To put it in a single question: Why should someone’s opinion (that hasn’t even been given yet) stop you from the joy of creating a work of art?

I’m sure there are those out there that would disagree with my assessment. And that is OK. It is my thoughts that shape my world and it is my thoughts and feelings that fashion the audio clay into a song. If I try to write a song that I think others will enjoy, guess what? I usually wind up discarding it. I’m not and expert. I am able to write songs though. If I have one piece of “advice” to give, it would be to write songs you FEEL. Songs that resonate with your spirit or inner man – whatever term you want to use. Formula songs sound just like what they are. Formula songs. If you want to sell songs or get signed by a record label. You can try to write what you think they want or you can stay true to your art and hope they will discover it and sign you up. I sort of think that either path is as difficult.

Just putting this out there for consideration on your music journey. My intent is not to generate debate, but to try and remove some chains from others that held me in bondage for nearly 10 years in my early life as a musician.

In writing this piece I am not trying to downplay the knowledge that professional recording engineers have. Neither am I trying to diminish how good modern music sounds. I am only trying to point out a few things to consider as we travel along our musical pursuits.

There are many, many fine sounding instruments out there including both electric and acoustic. I totally get that we must amplify an acoustic instrument in order to play to a large audience or those in the back will only hear it faintly if at all. In a small setting or room playing to 20 or so people, amplification is not needed. When I play flute in my music room with the doors closed, my flute can be heard throughout the house. The walls dampen it considerably, but the sound carries through the whole house.

If I went outside and down the block, family in my house would not hear it without significant amplification. So we buy amplifiers to play to larger audiences.

I have noticed lately that there are portable amplifiers one can buy now that amplify the Native American Flute for playing to larger crowds. That, I mean, was why I thought they were purchased. I had opportunity to try one and it barely played louder than my flute by itself. So why then does one buy one of these? The answer seems to be to add reverb to the sound or echo and depending on the unit, both and in some you may even find chorusing and similar effects. The very first question I ask myself is: doesn’t the flute sound good as it is? Is one of those units needed for a Stradivarius? Do you find those units in use by members of orchestras?

What I think has taken place is over time, is recording and playback devices have evolved. With the advent of stereo, attempts have been made to mimic the directionality of sound. Consider that you are sitting in a living room and your friend takes out an acoustic guitar or his Native American Flute. He begins to play. It sounds really good. All by itself. If it does not, he bought the wrong flute. Do you expect to hear reverb and echo in a living room? There is a certain amount of reverberation in every room unless it is treated to prevent the sound waves from bouncing. If reverb is not expected, why then does one try to add it? The answer as I see it is to mimic what we would hear if the flute was played in a canyon or large auditorium.

I want to delve into “stereo” first. Do we hear in stereo? I think so. We have two ears hearing the sound waves and they are on opposite sides of our head so they are hearing the sound from two different vantage points. That is how we can determine where sound is coming from. Is the flute or guitar we hear in stereo. No. It is a mono sound source, but we hear it in stereo. That is to say we have two sound receptors. But, there is only one sound source. Stereo systems are an illusion. They play what is a mono source through two speakers and the sound level is different in each speaker. This trick effectively moves the position of the sound source. It is louder in one ear than the other so it sounds like it is closer to the left ear than the right or vice versa depending on where in the stereo picture the person mixing placed it. So we have a stereo source and stereo reception. Does that mean it is stereo stereo?

If you have a flute player and a guitar player in front of you, you have two mono sources and the directionality comes from where the musicians are physically located. We hear in stereo, but we hear two mono sources. In order to obtain “placement” of the musician in recorded material, you have to adjust the sound levels to “move” the musicians left and right. That works to an extent. Something is lost though.

If you take a sine wave and and duplicate it and invert it, assuming the actual start time is not changed. The two waves will cancel each other. The positive pulse will be exactly opposite a negative pulse at the same time so the effective output is zero. No sound. Anywhere two amplitudes coincide, there is a certain amount of cancelation assuming they are in phase. If you play two instruments through the same speaker, some cancellation takes place. Thus the sound you hear is not as full and rich as it would be if heard live, no matter how much quality is in the gear you have. Modern sound equipment has methods to deal with phase. You can invert phase and other things to help compensate for this cancellation. There is also the problem of reinforcement. Sound is cumulative. If you want proof go to a stadium and listen. The problem is at some point the electronic information hits the speaker coil. Ideally the best audio system, in my opinion, to play back a 4 piece band would be four indepenent channels playing through 4 speakers. You would then have a true reproduction of what you heard live.

We have slowly been convinced that stereo is the best way to listen to recorded music. I submit that it is not, but it is more affordable than quad systems or multi channel beyond quad. Quadrophonic systems were on the market awhile and may still be. I really don’t know. Home theatre systems use multi channel systems and they are coveted. I wonder why that isn’t used in audio only? Perhaps because of the mobile devices? The men that profit from music would have to produce more than one product to meet the demands of multiple markets. That cuts into profits. Maybe if they put effort into marketing? If it costs $1.00 to produce a product and 600 million people will buy it at $5.00 wow lot’s of money. But if it cost’s $1.00 to produce the same product multi-channel and only 100 million people will buy because the don’t want to be limited to listening only at home, it is easy to see why you wouldn’t want to make a specialty product. To compensate for the smaller market, you could raise the price, but we all know that would further reduce the profit. In economics there is the point of diminishing returns. To me, it is sad that economics limits what is available to us. So we go on buying and listening to stereo because it is more profitable for the producers.

I got side tracked a bit, but the main point of all the above is to point out that the sounds we hear are mono and we hear in stereo. Stereo systems attempt to reproduce the live sound and spatial characteristics.

So lets look at another piece of the puzzle. Which sounds better live or recorded? Having been to a number of concerts and having been a performing musician in rock and country bands since 1967, my vote would be for live. Live is better. No explanation. It just is. Why else would a band perform live? Do we go just to watch the musicians move around? Most of us can’t see nor do we fully appreciate what it is to play the instruments of the performers. We just like the sounds they produce. “Live” is an experience. Listening to the stereo is not. Live is different everywhere you go because of the differences in venue. Room size and acoustic characteristics, indoors or out, how close we sit to the band/performer or how far to the left or right all affect how the music sounds. Live is never the same experience. It can be close but it is never the same. That leads me to a question. Where should we place a microphone to capture that “live” sound? We should put it where the listener would be.

In my opinion and I’m sure there are many that would argue the point, two omni directional mics placed at head width apart with a barrier between them is the ideal. The dual mic arrangement should be where the most coveted seating is in the venue. Thus you would record each mono source where it actually is and how your ears would hear the sound. Our minds determine direction and such not our ears so it is safe to assume mics could substitute for ears as we record. A four piece band usually will have a drummer and he sits center stage. The bass is on one side and the lead is on the other. The fourth instrument is on one side or the other of the drummer. This arrangement isn’t a rule nor universal. The lead instrument can be center stage and drums on the left or right and so on. Point is there are four mono sources being recorded from stereo receptors where the listener would be. This would give you the listener the best chance at hearing it the way it was at a live performance. Trouble is we have things in electronics that color the sound or change it. Our ears do this as well, but that is normal. Microphones have response curves. Some favor highs and some favor lows. Purchasing a mic is an important decision. Ideally one with the same response curve as the human ear would be the best choise. Human ears don’t hear equally well at all frequencies. I don’t know for sure how mics do at various frequencies, but I do know there is a noise level in electronics so signal to noise ratio is important. To me, the closer you can get to capturing what the human ear can hear the better. I have read the human ears hears the frequency spectrum optimally at 85db, so when I mix that is the volume I make my reference monitors. If I am forced to mix in headphones I crank them until it sounds similar to 85db on open speakers. This is one way to compensate for the shortcomings of electronic processing of sound.

Sound studios go to great lengths to EQ music when is being mixed for production. This EQ process does not take place live unless each instrument is close mic’d and mixed into a stereo system for play through the main PA system. Various factors come into play when sounds are mixed. In a live setting of acoustic instruments it just is what it is. If each instrument were mic’d and mixed after the fact for production of a CD, all that “stuff” comes into play. What I’m saying here is one can come very close to producing a “live” sound, but to really do it, you have to be at the live performance. Phase cancellation complicates mixing. Frequency reinforcement (when two instruments are producing the same frequencies) leads to problems in how music sounds on sound sytems. The response characteristics of the speakers. It is a science in itself to mix sound for production.

So let’s assume it is all good and the flute player wants the listener to hear his flute as it would sound at a canyon somewhere in Arizona. So he adds reverb and maybe echo to the sound of the flute. The question is: where is the listener at that canyon? Is he standing next to the flute player? Is he on the other side of the canyon? Down in the bottom? Where the listener is determines what that flute will sound like. I guarantee you the flute player hears his flute differently than the listener that is 10 feet away in the venue. Most flute players including me, put the mic close to the true sound hole. A listener would never do that. You don’t stand with your head in front of the flute player and your ear 2 inches from the true sound hole. So why do we close mic? There is a thing about microphones. Proximity to the mic determines how “rich” how “robust” the sound is that is written to file. So we close mic, but that is at the expense of the room characteristics. They become way off in the background and that would not be true for the listener. If there is a best place to put a mic I would have to say it depends on what mic you have and what you are trying to achieve for the listener.

Let’s get back to the canyon setting. Let’s take the extreme. If the listener is on the far rim is he actually going to be able to hear your flute at all? That depends on how wide the canyon is. Sound dissipates with distance and how quickly is affected by numerous factors including air temperature, textures and shapes of reflective surfaces and so on. If for example he can hear your flute at half volume because he is on the opposite rim, in the real world you would have your flute low in the ambient sounds of the environment. That rim the listener is standing on IS the reflective surface that will create the echo you want him to hear, so he WON’T hear that echo. If he could it would not be as loud as the original flute sound. An echo is heard at a point other than the surface that reflected the sound. If the listener is standing by the flute player and at the far rim the volume hitting the reflecting surface is half as loud as the original, then it would follow that the echo heard by the flute player and the listener next to him would be half again as loud and that assumes the dampening of the sound is linear. There may be other surfaces that produce echoes and when the echo is heard and how loud it is heard is dependent on where the reflective surface is. It is more likely to be lower in volume than the flute is because it had to travel further than the line of site sound. The point of all this is, in the real world the echo is nowhere near as loud as the sound source. The odds of hearing a second echo from the same surface are very slim. But we flute players that mix sound and those that mix for us tend to make it that way. It tickles the ears and we enjoy the way it sounds. But, it is not realistic. We are making sounds that do not exist anywhere except in the electronic world or an elaborately constructed sound environment.

I’ve been playing music in front of and for people since 1955 and not once has anyone said that it would sound better if it had some echo or reverb. That is zero times out of thousands of performances over my life time. Is it wrong to add all the effects and EQ and “stuff”? No. Not wrong. Depends on what your goal is. Are you looking for a processed sound or a realistic sound? Do you want to hear the instrument as it actually sounds or do you want to hear what it sounds liked processed and EQ’d? Is there a correct mic placement? Yes and no. Correct placement is dependent on your end goal. There are convolution reverbs available that base the effect on real world samples and those are pretty good. But in my opinion it always come back to where is the listener in a given venue? Did they sample the reverberation at the source or where the listener would be?

I read a book once. A very comprehensive, in depth book that included how to construct the best sound studio and it covered all the aspects of mics, mixing, mastering and all that. At the end of the book the author summed it up. He said if it sounds good to you, you did it right. Some of the biggest songs of all time were recorded with an open mic in a garage. I won’t list the ones I know of. That info is on the web if you want to check it.

Music is art. It is much more than art, but it is art. The artist determines what his music should sound like. There is no wrong way to do it unless you are trying to conform to someone’s idea of what it should sound like. I for one, am not in competition with the “big boys”. In the first place, they aren’t the big boys. They are just the guys that got good at producing music that sounds the way the guys that promote and sell music want it to sound. I have no hard feeling or dislikes for the “big boys”, but I also don’t think they are any better than the average Joe that produces his own music. I respect their knowledge and their skills at what they do. I for one do not create art to make money. If it generates money that is great. I create it and share it because I truly believe the gifts I have are not for me but for other people. I create art and share it without cost. I do have an album for sale for those that my want the rights have copies for themselves. The art I create is for the sake of creating art. If people like or not, is not in consideration. I like it when they do, but I don’t write music with the purpose of making it sound good to others. I’m not trying to sell it so there is no need to consider the market. Is it wrong to produce art with commercial goals in mind? No. Is it wrong to create music so a larger audience might like it? No. There is a feeling I get when I do a painting and it turns out just like I envisioned it when I started. I get the same feeling when I build a nice deck for the back yard area. I create songs that I hear in my spirit and I make them the way I hear them. When it turns out that I think others might enjoy it, I share it. Does that make me any better or worse than the guys are trying to make money with it? Nope.

I would not presume to tell a painter he used the wrong shade of blue or his composition violates the well established norms for painting. His painting is what it is and it is as HE wanted it to be. Same thing with music. If a person uses a cell phone to record their flute song and they are happy with the way it sounds, then I either like the song, the way it sounds or I don’t. I appreciate music for the music that it is. How well it is recorded or mixed and such is an entirely different matter. To me, there is nothing more beautiful than the sound of a fine acoustic instrument in an intimate setting like a living room. Do I do the other stuff? You bet I do! I like that too! But to me, nothing compares to sitting in front of a musician that is playing a piece that touches me deeply and moves me. The presence of that musician adds to the experience in a way that transcends this physical world. Some would argue that. I’m just expressing an opinion and belief. The closer I come to that setting the better I like it. But I also like echo that is loud enough to double up with the original sound. It has a nice sound all its own.

So it’s all sort of like golf. You think about all the “stuff”, but when it’s time to hit the ball, you just gotta hit the ball. I would rather listen to a musican that can hit the ball rather than one that knows how. My favorite musicians are the ones that touch me with their music. I don’t care has fast they can play a riff. If it doesn’t reach me, it is just well executed note patterns.

I do not expect any responses to this. If it provokes thought, good! I am not looking for nor will I debate the validity of what I’ve expressed here. I’m just putting it out there as the thoughts I woke up with this morning.

I have read much about tunings, different tuning standards and such. I have read heated debates over 432 hz vs 440 hz standards.

I’ve recently seen debates over whether 432 should be used for Native American flutes. Seems in all the “discussion” I’ve read, it always goes back to the same debates. It is debated whether or not one standard has healing properties. One standard is referred to as a conspiracy to control behavior. And so on.

So to just look at what is most likely true about the earliest Native American Flutes, here is what I came up with:

1: The early makers likely did not have a tuning standard unless it was a particularly nice sounding flute they used as a pattern.

2: To my knowledge, tuning forks, strobe tuners and electronic tuners came after the NAF was developed.

3: The idea of major, minor, pentatonic scales, modes and such were brought by the men from across the big water.

4: The mathematics used in evaluation of hole placement did not exist for the earlier flute makers, unless they kept it a closely guarded secret.

It seems to me at first glance, the earlier flute makes and musicians made instruments and music that sounded good to their ears. Interesting concept. Music that sounds good…….

I wonder what “standard” the earlier flute makers used? Back when there were no tuning forks available to them and no electronic tuners. I wonder if they had some sort of horse hair or leather lace tightened between the forks of a branch to a “standard” frequency? But, wait they had no way to measure the frequency…..  From what I’ve been able to read of historical facts on the web, it seems available resources played a big part in how the NAF was developed.

I try to imagine me in a time without tuners or tuning standards and I’m making a flute. I find a piece of river cane and it has a set bore size. So I’m gonna make the parts that generate the sound. We refer to it as the slow air chamber, flue and true sound hole. Then I start trimming the cane until it makes a good strong pleasant sounding note/tone. Then needing to set the fundamental accurately, I run through the village looking for the other musician that plays the…… Oh wait. No guitarist. No pianist. No Oboe either. Hmmmm. Guess I just have to make do with a note that sounds good. Guess I could go to another maker that has a nice sounding flute and try to match mine to his. Or, I could just make mine sound good to my ears.

I’ve not found any historical information that suggests the early NAF makers/players had standard scales. I haven’t read about any orchestras or combos among the Native Americans. Pretty much it was percussion and flutes. I can only suppose they must have made the lowest hole sound good to their ear in relation to the fundamental. Each hole after that had to sound good in relation to the others and the fundamental.. One method was to use the makers body proportions to lay out the hole pattern. So with that method, each flute was made according to a varying standard.

The debate over which tuning is best IMHO belongs in a tuning forum. We imposed our standards on the NAF. The earlier makers did not have to worry about being in tune with pianos, guitars and such. So that kind of blows apart the idea of tuning standards. They are only needed if a group of musicians are going to play together. Seems we noticed similarities to our established scales and “refined” the NAF to fit our standards. Guess that means our music is better? We felt the need to take another culture’s instrument and make it better, more like what we feel is good? Seems like there are words for that type of thinking. What makes our ideas of music better?

To me, NAF’s sound great with or without accompaniment. So to me, there should be a standard called “sounds good”. No rules, just pleasing to the ear. When I tune my acoustic guitar, I tune either to another instrument or a tuner and only because I’m gonna play with others. Once I have all my open strings in perfect tune then I put the tuner away and tune the guitar by ear listening to the chords. With new strings and perfectly tuned open strings, once chord will sound really good and the other a little off. I adjust the strings until all the chords I play sound equally as good as they can. I tune my flutes the same. I set the notes with a tuner at around 72 degrees. Then I let the flute “age” some. Then I go back and adjust it until it sounds the sweetest to me. If I’m making a flute for someone else, I tune it to the accepted standards in use today and leave it. I have made a flute according to body dimensions. I gifted it because the fellow wanted it. Sounded real sweet, but it didn’t meet any standards. I have another all mapped out and ready to make.

My dad was a guitarist. He taught me to play and I learned a lot after that from other guitarists and learning to play songs in cover bands. I used to sit and play with my Dad after I became an adult. We often swapped instruments. When we did, he would have to re-tune my guitar and when he handed it back to me, I would have to re-tune it. Why? Because of the amount of pressure used to press the strings. He pressed much harder than was needed for some unknown reason. That effectively made the notes sharp when he played and he had to down tune to compensate. Stringed instruments are that way. The artist/musician uses his fingers and sometimes a slide or such to determine what note is played, whether or not there is vibrato and whether or not the note is flat or sharp.

Native American Flutes are the same. The player can play sharp or flat at will. A note can be bent. So whether or not the A is 432 or 440 doesn’t really seem to matter. One standard is lower in general than the other.  I think 432 is better than 440. Why? Because it sounds better to me. I am fascinated by the mathematics of the 432 based tunings and the correlation to the mathematics of the universe. Could I pick a 432 instrument out of several instruments? Maybe. Can is provide emperical proof that it is better? No, because art is expression and whether or not art is good is subjective. Overall sound is more pleasing at the lowered tuning. Lower it too much and it doesn’t sound as good. At some point it becomes a different note.  Does it heal my body? Maybe. If music heals my soul and a healthy soul leads to a healthier body, then yes it does. Do certain frequencies have a direct effect on the physical body? Yes they do. Is it healing? Maybe. It can for sure be destructive.

One last observation. Violins have 4 strings and no frets. The musician must play in tune by ear. What does that do for tuning temperament arguments? This is especially true if the violinist is playing solo. So IMHO tuning is in the ear of the beholder. Science is nice and I appreciate the work that goes into developing sciences, but music is an art, not a science. You can use science to analyze a musical work of art. I’m not sure why we would need to do that. Art is meant to enjoy. Music comes from  a place within man. It is not created by scientific formulas. What formula determines what the next note should be?

IMHO. The holes in the NAF to me, are a guide. Each note’s purity is determined by my breath pressure, how hard I press on the hole and whether or not I fully cover the hole. In other words I express music. I don’t just play it according to rules. Give me any flute you want and I’ll play it and enjoy it. Who says it has to be tuned to any standard at all? Man takes a natural phenomenon, sound, and creates a set of rules for how it should be used.

Who is it that demands we adhere to a set of rules? Who determines which set of rules we need to follow? I often turn my audio recorder on and just play. Then, I go back and try to add to it with other instruments. Sometimes it sounds better, sometimes it does not. I have yet to find a set of rules to determine what sounds best. I was gifted a Tibetan singing bowl. I really like the way it sounds. It is fascinating to listen to. I have not felt the need to analyze the frequency of it’s tone. Never been curious to view its waveform characteristics. I just like the way it sounds. Same with the Native American Flute. I understand all the “stuff” about it, but in the end, I just like the way it sounds.

I have had requests from family and friends to make some videos on how to play the flute. Videos take up a lot of bandwidth, so I am opting for text lessons augmented with audio files. If and where needed, I will consider adding a video clip.

If you are a beginner or just want to read what I’ve come up with click here.

Enjoy!

Just watched a very good video on how to use the circle of fifths and how to use it for the minor keys.

The video had very good info. But how does a flute player put this to use? Does a beginning player really have to learn all of this? I have played music since 1955 and I am just beginning to learn theory. I have played professionally in bands since 1966 and still do. I am just now starting to become musically literate. Not knocking it, just sayin’.

It is one thing to have a piano keyboard in front of you with it all right there, the sharps and flats and such are visible. With a Native American flute, there is only one pentatonic scale visible. There rest is in the audio range. So how does this work out on flute? How does a circle of fifths relate to a flute when your buddy starts strumming a chord progression? There isn’t time to consult the charts unless your buddy is patient. Theory is important. It is even used when compiling an album. You don’t want several songs in a row that are in the same key. Sort of like a boring melody. If you using the circle of fifths as a guide arranging the order of songs, each song sounds fresh because it is in a different but related key. Anyway, knowledge is good, but there I am with a guitarist and he starts playing a chord progression. No time to consult the charts and diagrams. It is time to play the flute.

I think playing by ear is the answer. What is playing by ear? It is listening to the melody in your mind and then playing that on a flute or your instrument of choice. Consider singing. How does a singer know where the note is? All a singer has is vocal cords. A singer knows just how to configure the vocal cords to achieve a given pitch. A musician can do the same thing. One can learn where a certain pitch is on their instrument in the same way a singer does it. So if any player, beginner to advanced just plays the scale through and pays attention to the sound, they can begin to associate the pitch with the hand position. I am primarily a guitarist. I have always said “I just make the string longer and shorter”. Guitars have six of those strings. All one is doing with a flute is making the bore longer and shorter. So, play the scale and let your mind and spirit take in the sound. Eventually hand position to attain a certain pitch will be learned.

There are a lot of rules in music, but one stands out to me. If it sounds good, it is correct. Jimi Hendrix opened one of his songs with “incorrect” tones. Listen to the intro to Purple Haze and you’ll see what I mean. Even incorrect can sound good in the right context. It is nice to be able to explain and describe technically so we can communicate that to others, but it isn’t necessary in playing the instrument. So to the nitty gritty. To play an Em Native American Flute in G, just put a G chord to playing and then find the “good” notes. Now make a melody with them. It really is that simple. It is how I do it.

Some might say, but I am tone deaf. Can I play the flute? I submit that there is no one that is tone deaf. Everyone can hear pitch changes. We use pitch every day when we speak. It is a very important part of audible communication. If you don’t believe it read this blog in a mono tone and I’m pretty sure before you finish the opening sentence, you know what I mean. So called tone deaf people use pitch all the time when they speak. Earl Thomas Connally was “tone deaf”. Someone that was paying attention, heard the sound of his voice recognized the potential. They had him taught how to recognize pitch and how to tell when two notes are the same. It can be learned. So “tone deaf” people, may have a bit more work to do, but they can do it. Tuning a guitar by ear uses the principles. One listens to the overall pitch until they get close. They will sound a bit “sour” at first. Listening closely one can hear a sort of “warble”. That is a third note being generated by the difference of the two. The further apart the two notes are the faster the warble because faster in tone vibrations equals higher pitch. So if there is a sour sound and one listens, they can hear the warble. Tune the string slowly and if the warble slows down that is the correct direction. Keep tuning until the warble is gone and the two strings are in tune.

So reality is anyone can learn to play the Native American Flute. It may be easier for some, but all can do it. The main ingredient for success is to play it a lot. Play through the scale and your fingers will learn. The same way a typist learns to type. The payoff is a lifetime of fun and deep satisfying enjoyment. And the best part is you can share the enjoyment with others.

Some might be afraid to play in public. I was for a long time. What if I make a mistake? That would be very embarassing. I played that tape many times in my younger years. Reality is this. If a Gm pentatonic scale is correct for the key of Gm, then any note in that scale is valid and correct as long as the song stays in the key of Gm and doesn’t actually make a key change. If that is not true, then the Gm pentatonic scale is not valid. Music can be expressed mathematically. And we all know that in mathematics it is either true or false. So either the scale is valid or it is not. Some notes may not sound as good as others in a certain chord, but it is musically and theoretically correct. Sow how can one make a mistake if that is true? You can’t. Wow! There goes one of the biggest fears for a beginner playing in public.

Consider the process of writing a song. We all can do it. Take my word on that. Writing a song, some notes are higher some are lower. Some are short and some are long. The musician just arranges the properties of the tune and of each note. The easy way is to hear the sound in your mind and play it on your flute. If you play your flute line first with no background music and then put chords to it, some very interesting progressions can be developed that might not have otherwise. Writing a chord progression isn’t too hard, but for me I tend to write progression I already know. Following a free flowing flute line forces me to make decisions on how it sounds and less on what is “correct”. That is how I write most of my flute music. Developing a chord progression first tends to lock in the melody. Melody first, makes it so the chords have to follow the melody. If the flute is truly a “lead instrument”, then it makes sense to me to let it lead the accompaniment. Develop the chords and music around the flute, not the other way around. If the flute line gives a feel of melancholy, then the accompaniment will automatically take on that feel.

So to me, the way a beginner gets to the finish line is to play the flute a lot and take in the sounds as they play. They become part of a huge library of sounds in the spirit (some would say mind). Collections of notes (riffs), are also in there. Pick up a flute. Hum a few notes that you hear in your mind, then play them on the flute. At some point you’ll be able to “hum” in your mind and play the notes simultaneously. Let that collection in your “library” become part of the process. Think of those riffs as a single expression.

It amazes me how many melodies have been written over the centuries and there are still a gazzillion more that haven’t been written yet. There is plenty of room for your melody to be added to the collection.

I got a bit wordy on this and drifted a bit, but that is OK. After all I’m just blogging. To sum it up. Learning theory is great, but not necessary to actually playing an instrument. There are many, many self taught musicians out there. If theory were actually necessary to playing, then the self taught musicians wouldn’t exist nor the guys like me that play by ear. So pick up that flute, violin or whatever you decide is your instrument and start making some beautiful sounds. It will turn into music. Trust me on that.

And also, PLEASE share your music with the rest of us!

William

I am posting a screen print of a node tree I used in Blender as requested. Hope this helps. I will do a step by step tutorial in the next few days.

Ocean Foam Nodes

Hope this helps. This is as high resolution as I can fit on my monitor.

Harold

I had a great time learning to make Anasazi/Pueblo flutes!  After I figured it out, I took what I learned and made a few for my arsenal.  My latest is in the key of A.  I have several videos out there on Youtube. The latest is:

Ancient Mountain

Anasazi Style Flutes

If you like the sound of these flutes, I have instructions on making them on this site. Just click the link above. I would be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability.  My photography addiction is melding well with my music addiction . . . . . . . . . . .

I have enjoyed venturing into the world of the NAF Style flute. I have enjoyed making them and learning to play them. Recently I found out about Anasazi Flutes. I heard Scott August playing a most beautiful song on a web video. I have done some research and have begun making the prototype for the wooden flute I will be making. I am using PVC as it is inexpensive and easy to start over if needed. I am writing the instructions for what I’m doing as I progress. You are welcome to work along with me. Click the Anasazi link in the main menu if you’re interested in making one.

Harold

I’ve been out doing for some time. I thought I’d take a few minutes and update.  My beautiful wife, Nancy and I have been out taking photographs.  We’re shooting everything from desert flowers to antelope, pelicans and canyons.  We are having a lot of fun with our new cameras.  If you every want an exciting drive. Take Highway 12 between Green River, Utah and Bryce Canyon.  Wonderful scenery! Hogsback Ridge is a scream.  The highway just drops to canyon on both sides.  Hold onto the wheel!  Here’s a video of some photos I took on the trip.  Wrote and recorded a flute song to go along. Hope you enjoy!

Utah Canyons

Also on Youtube:

Harold