I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Michael Bump, Associate Professor of percussion at Truman State University, a couple of weeks ago. He talked about his experience in Trinidad and Tobago during Panorama 2011. Michael recently performed with the Invaders Steel Drum Band while on sabbatical at Truman State.
Check out the podcast at:
http://drumchattr.com/drumchattr-podcast-24-an-interview-with-michael-bump/
Let us know your thoughts.
Thanks!
Dave
Views: 830
You need to be a member of When Steel Talks to add comments!
Sidd would you please keep quiet, I do not want to say shut up it might start you off again,Dave please forgive the board Administrators the topic went off the wall and it is not the comentators fault, we all received E-mails with comments by the administrators asking a Question "are pan men real musicians?" and it should have been a seperate thread but it was linked to your thread, I will not make too many comments on this as to why I think it happened, but pan is the results of a series of spontaneous reactions so is music, it needs not be defined, Dr bump gave a real honest reaction to an earth moving experience with this illustrious but humble artform we are all real musicians most humans the way we walk, talk, eat, sleep etc and them we transfer this into an audible expression and call it music as it hits the ear it assults the emotions and we reminise on it bringing a pleasure that cannot be explained, through years we in order to make this expression universal we created tools to help us better to use it, Dr Bump had a nice but rude awakening as he realised that enslaving oneself to these tools and depending wholeheartedly on it kills the authenticity of the expression itself which is supposed to be an apeal to our emotions which is best expressed from the heart rather than the brain, the pan musicians depend on the tools of their brain and use their emotions to reproduce them and this seems to be his point
I do believe you might be able to delete the discussion your self if you are tired of the "OLE(old) Talk" as we call it
I wish the administrators of this site would close the conservation on this topic. The discussion is far from the original intent of the original post.
I think we can all agree that pan players are musician. We are preaching to the choir and it is my hope we can put this topic to rest here and now.
I don't know how many of the commentators here took the time to actually listen to the pod-cast in its entirety, but I do agree with Dave's thoughts expressed elsewhere that the points raised in the pod-cast i.e. the dynamics of a Trinidad steelband preparing for Panorama as seen from the viewpoint of a foreigner,has been distorted into a discussion as to whether or not a panists should learn music theory.
As far as I am concerned, ALL panists are musicians, only some are PROFESSIONAL musicians, and there is a distinction.
The youngster who joins his favorite steelband after Christmas in Trinidad with the intention of participating in the Panorama and maybe playing on the road on Carnival day becomes a musician.
The beauty of the steelband is that he can fully participate, without learning music theory.
If on the other hand his interest is awakened such that he wishes to further his knowledge and understanding of music, even if he does not wish to become a professional, then it becomes necessary that goes to the next level, which includes formal study of music theory.
This does not negate the fact that gifted musicians in all genres have been successful without formal music training, but these are our geniuses(like Boogsie, etc,), and are exceedingly rare.
A key distinction. In fact a full twelve-key distinction! But even the genii, with or without formal training, learn from others. They look listen & learn, absorb & deliver their own musical itineraries & experiments. The truly gifted jump ahead, but they move on the turtlebacks of the examples & sonic perfections of the past. None emerge alone not in music & not in childbirth!
Sidd, i'd have to say your comments ring true, all the same here is my continuation & clarification. A Trinidadian is someone born in Trinidad. That's it. There is no requirement of knowledge, what you have done with your life, or even where you live. A musician is simply someone who plays music. Amen. And a whole lotta women too! yes, one's natural curiousity should impel one to reach for names, chords, different beats, understanding of different recipes, principles of organization, orchestration & arrangement, manipulation of dynamics within a phrase as well as per section, how the base line addresses & often outlines the chord sequence as well as the myriad concerns of music. But while our interest in or actual accumulation of all this musical culture may make us better musicians, it is still not a requirement to our entitlement to the name "musician". Musician only means you are a conduit of music, not your depth of your understanding of it. A more important definer would be the feeling you get & are able to transfer through it. You could say that music comes from an exalted, impassioned focus with its ability to delight, invigorate or disturb through sound. So here is my view: A musician is simply someone who plays music! An erudite musician is one who has mastered the international vocabulary of music & understands what each concept means in practice & even how to achieve this. While one is evolving from one to the other, or stalled enroute, one remains still fully a musician. Is Amrit Samaroo a musician now, but at the age of 4 didn't qualify? While throughout his life he has accumulated musical technique, wisdom & theory, there simply could not have been a time when he was not a musician. Music is sound first & knowledge second. We could venture it is the manipulation of sound knowledge of sound. Though we all aspire to the knowledge & feeling of sound, wherever you are in that continuum does not qualify or disqualify one from the ennobling name of musician. Therefore a kalimba player, a flautist and a pannist is always & definitely a musician whether they play by shape, rhythmic memory of patterns, or actual note names and whether they have their musical"ABCs" or not.
A few more thoughts. Why do you suppose that musical notation (European, Asian or otherwise) was first concieved? There must have been a need for it, and there must have first been music in order for the need to arise. If there was music than it would be reasonable to conclude that "musicians" were playing and composing it. That could be the end of the matter, but let's go a step further and return to my original question as to why sheet music was invented. Back in the day there was no recording media, no tape, no digital devices, in short no way to preserve a musical performance. From this state of affairs there arose a need to convey to musicians, in a fairly understandable manner, how a piece is to be played in terms of melody, harmony and rhythm if the composition is to be enjoyed by a wide audience. Now if there was recording media available, at the time, it could be argued that a need for sheet music may have never arose. After all, if one were to attempt to duplicate a painting, drawing or piece of sculpture would it be more sensible to work from a description of the artwork or simply look at it? Had this been the case and musical notation had not been concieved then the ONLY musicians would be those who could play by rote, and where would that leave those who may be considered academic "musicians"? In the dustbin I say!
I love all of the discussion that has been going on about the podcast. Unfortunately, I think the original intent of the podcast has been taken out of content. Check out today's post on DrumChattr.com for my thoughts.
Are Pan Players Real Musicians? Join the discussion on DrumChattr.com http://wibi.us/eOiuEu
Theory, music theory that is, is simply a description of what musicians have done in the past. When the baroque composer Rameau, first compended his treatise on music theory, he sifted through current & age old musical style, & began to categorize the patterns. He is credited with the major & minor scales & the theory of a tonic, a key centre around which all melody, & chords buzz like humming bees. hundreds of years later, using the twelve-tone approach, Schoenberg tried to toss that aside, & without any appreciable success a hundred years later.
Anyway, what i set out to say is that theory is a set of "rules & observations" that each successive generation breaks, stretches & morphs. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is beauty of sound, in the ear of the hearer. Agreed-upon taste is not only not shared by each generation, even within the same generation, those bred in different enviroments differ greatly. i still remember proudly playing a cassette recording of a panorama arrangement at music school, for an exquisite singer who had never seen a steelband. After 28 seconds.... she said aloud "What the hell is that?" She didn't mean, " i've never heard a band with such instruments, however do they work?", she really meant :"you call that music?!!" So a cultural immersion is essential to predispose one to react favourably to a new genre of music, or sound.
My major point which we both hope i actually make this time is: theory is at best a gathering of the music habits & procedures of cohesion used by musicians past in the relay team approach to those who are to lead us into the future. It is not & cannot be a guide to the future. It is a codification of times past. Like a snapshot of trinidad in 1900. It's value is historical, & offers explanations to those who seek them ways of viewing at music, while it postulates 'proof' of what music is supposed to be. It might seek to outlaw certain of the required musical experiments new musicians now direct & discover.
Music is like God, a much bigger & all embrasive entity that certain books & shouters would have us believe. i still remember absolute puzzlement when i played the bass line versus the sax melody of "Low rider" & realized that the bass always played Bb in its upward musical course, while the sax always played B. Bass :[FG Bb c d f dfgfg] Sax transposed to concert pitch:[BBBBB C D GBC B G]. How could this be? It dismissed al theory. It made zero theoretical sense, but was still music of great beauty. If you can play 'Mary had a little lamb', both melody chords & a bass line, you actually have the means to all the theory you need to understand all popular music. Theory no more a musician makes, than holding a book makes one an author! A musician is someone who seeks out making sounds that are personally pleasing. The level of expertise, the mode of operation, the location, the 'quality' as perceived by others, & most of all the presence of theoretical
knowledge are truly irrelevant. A musician is someone who produces sounds! Comments anyone?
Replies
Sidd would you please keep quiet, I do not want to say shut up it might start you off again,Dave please forgive the board Administrators the topic went off the wall and it is not the comentators fault, we all received E-mails with comments by the administrators asking a Question "are pan men real musicians?" and it should have been a seperate thread but it was linked to your thread, I will not make too many comments on this as to why I think it happened, but pan is the results of a series of spontaneous reactions so is music, it needs not be defined, Dr bump gave a real honest reaction to an earth moving experience with this illustrious but humble artform we are all real musicians most humans the way we walk, talk, eat, sleep etc and them we transfer this into an audible expression and call it music as it hits the ear it assults the emotions and we reminise on it bringing a pleasure that cannot be explained, through years we in order to make this expression universal we created tools to help us better to use it, Dr Bump had a nice but rude awakening as he realised that enslaving oneself to these tools and depending wholeheartedly on it kills the authenticity of the expression itself which is supposed to be an apeal to our emotions which is best expressed from the heart rather than the brain, the pan musicians depend on the tools of their brain and use their emotions to reproduce them and this seems to be his point
I do believe you might be able to delete the discussion your self if you are tired of the "OLE(old) Talk" as we call it
I think we can all agree that pan players are musician. We are preaching to the choir and it is my hope we can put this topic to rest here and now.
Thank you.
Dave
As far as I am concerned, ALL panists are musicians, only some are PROFESSIONAL musicians, and there is a distinction.
The youngster who joins his favorite steelband after Christmas in Trinidad with the intention of participating in the Panorama and maybe playing on the road on Carnival day becomes a musician.
The beauty of the steelband is that he can fully participate, without learning music theory.
If on the other hand his interest is awakened such that he wishes to further his knowledge and understanding of music, even if he does not wish to become a professional, then it becomes necessary that goes to the next level, which includes formal study of music theory.
This does not negate the fact that gifted musicians in all genres have been successful without formal music training, but these are our geniuses(like Boogsie, etc,), and are exceedingly rare.
I love all of the discussion that has been going on about the podcast. Unfortunately, I think the original intent of the podcast has been taken out of content. Check out today's post on DrumChattr.com for my thoughts.
Are Pan Players Real Musicians? Join the discussion on DrumChattr.com http://wibi.us/eOiuEu
Cheers!
Dave
Theory, music theory that is, is simply a description of what musicians have done in the past. When the baroque composer Rameau, first compended his treatise on music theory, he sifted through current & age old musical style, & began to categorize the patterns. He is credited with the major & minor scales & the theory of a tonic, a key centre around which all melody, & chords buzz like humming bees. hundreds of years later, using the twelve-tone approach, Schoenberg tried to toss that aside, & without any appreciable success a hundred years later.
Anyway, what i set out to say is that theory is a set of "rules & observations" that each successive generation breaks, stretches & morphs. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is beauty of sound, in the ear of the hearer. Agreed-upon taste is not only not shared by each generation, even within the same generation, those bred in different enviroments differ greatly. i still remember proudly playing a cassette recording of a panorama arrangement at music school, for an exquisite singer who had never seen a steelband. After 28 seconds.... she said aloud "What the hell is that?" She didn't mean, " i've never heard a band with such instruments, however do they work?", she really meant :"you call that music?!!" So a cultural immersion is essential to predispose one to react favourably to a new genre of music, or sound.
My major point which we both hope i actually make this time is: theory is at best a gathering of the music habits & procedures of cohesion used by musicians past in the relay team approach to those who are to lead us into the future. It is not & cannot be a guide to the future. It is a codification of times past. Like a snapshot of trinidad in 1900. It's value is historical, & offers explanations to those who seek them ways of viewing at music, while it postulates 'proof' of what music is supposed to be. It might seek to outlaw certain of the required musical experiments new musicians now direct & discover.
Music is like God, a much bigger & all embrasive entity that certain books & shouters would have us believe. i still remember absolute puzzlement when i played the bass line versus the sax melody of "Low rider" & realized that the bass always played Bb in its upward musical course, while the sax always played B. Bass :[FG Bb c d f dfgfg] Sax transposed to concert pitch:[BBBBB C D GBC B G]. How could this be? It dismissed al theory. It made zero theoretical sense, but was still music of great beauty. If you can play 'Mary had a little lamb', both melody chords & a bass line, you actually have the means to all the theory you need to understand all popular music. Theory no more a musician makes, than holding a book makes one an author! A musician is someone who seeks out making sounds that are personally pleasing. The level of expertise, the mode of operation, the location, the 'quality' as perceived by others, & most of all the presence of theoretical
knowledge are truly irrelevant. A musician is someone who produces sounds! Comments anyone?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next