Quote:
|
I do too I suppose but I do think that a study of music theory and technique by their very nature are the tools that develop creativity.
|
I dont think they really do a scrap for creativity, personally. What those tools ARE good at doing is giving a student the means in which to convey their creativity out on to the kit.
Starting a student with less in some ways forces them to do MORE with less, but this in itself does not necessarily equate to a more creative player, as you have just as much chance of creating a repetitive and minimal player.
I think one way to get students to be more creative is to slow the whole process down, and not try to get too much into their heads in such a short time. Less ideas, concentrated upon and worked over more thoroughly allows the student to really dive into the concept and understand it a whole lot more deeply.
This is usually counter-intuitive (and ultimately not likely to happen) with educational facilities, where people are paying for MORE information. When I was writing my book, I was focused on the concept of understanding
how your body learns and what would be necessary in order to bring out your own style and creativity. My conclusion was that creativity cannot be improved without a great deal of self assessment - looking at what youve played vs what you are learning to play. A lot of students get caught up in the idea that more advanced concepts make better music. In order to show the student that the simple stuff is as good (often better) than the harder stuff, all concepts taught should be analysed alongside the music they apply to.
When we talk about musical
skill, a fair chunk of that has come back to the choices we make about what we choose to play for a given part, and that assessment is to do with your ears, not with your hands.