HOW MUCH OF your recent success is due to the novelty and acrobatic nature of your technique? Most of the people who come to my concerts haven't really heard me before--they're who I'm playing for. Chances are that it's my technique that brought them in, so they're going to be listening and watching for that the most. But a lot of people comment, "The technique is really amazing for a song or two, although when I sit down for a whole concert, I realize it's the music you're really into." After 10 years of using the touch approach, l don't think about what my fingers are doing that much, so most of my attention is directed at the music. But I admit that if I were doing the same stuff on a key board, there wouldn't be as much excitement. Still, I feel confident enough that I would be accepted for my musical ideas, although it might take longer. Since your technique and concept are keyboard-oriented, why did you take up the guitar in the first place? I got into pop and blues--Jimi Hendrix, the Temptations, the Beatles before I went all out with the counterpoint idea. I was about 10, and the guitar seemed to be the most exciting instrument. I would have stayed with the piano much more seriously if not for the fact that my parents split up and neither one of them had space for an instrument that large. That's the only reason I had to stop. Through the keyboard experience, I realized that playing fully independent counterpoint was very important to my music, so I had to get there with the guitar. After a while, I got to the point where I had invested so much time in the guitar that I couldn't turn back. Some players are bound to insist that you're not a real guitarist because your approach is such a radical departure from traditional technique. If I couldn't play the guitar in the regular sense, then it might be hard to call me a guitarist. But I do use traditional techniques. Over time, people are going to hear me use a pick and play in other ways, and they'll find out that I am a guitarist. How does it strike you that some critics are comparing your importance to that of Jimi Hendrix, Charlie Christian, or Wes Montgomery? It's a lot to live up to. I feel that what I'm doing is significant, but only time will tell just how significant it is. I don't let that kind of stuff intimidate me, because people naturally try to hype things. If I'm not as significant as Jimi Hendrix or Charlie Christian, it's okay. I'll keep playing, regardless; and I know that I'll always have a gig. I'm flattered, but I don't want to get caught up in all of the praise, because it would hurt my music. Despite the comparisons, it's undeniable that what you're doing is revolutionary. How do you explain your sudden success? I get the feeling that people are searching for something new, whereas 10 years ago they seemed to want to ride on what already existed. If I had tried to hit the scene professionally in the `70s, I might not have been able to get away with being quite as creative. Still, things are not as good as they could be. Because it takes a while for new ideas to get absorbed into the culture, it's inevitable to have cycles. For instance, a lot of what Jim Hendrix did took a long time to become part of the language. First there was a guy doing his own unique thing; then players figured out what he was doing and went overboard making it cliché. Finally, there was a reaction against it. After the movement in the `60s when a lot of new music came out, things went too far and musicians took themselves too seriously and started to get heavily into drugs. For most of the `70s, people just wanted to take it easy for a while and see where they were at. What's preventing a renaissance in musical experimentation? There are a couple of things. A lot of it has to do with money. Musicians are playing it safe because the money is uncertain, so they try for the big stakes. Maybe musicians' sights are too high; their expectations of how much money you should make might be too great. It seems that things were different in the days of the great jazz artists, such as [vocalist] Ella Fitzgerald and [composer/pianist] Duke Ellington. Back then, the idea of "making it" was having a good night or playing a good solo. Whereas now, it means moving into the neighborhood you've always wanted. Because of rock's popularity, it's possible to make more money than ever before. The other thing is that like a lot of cultures, we have our pop music and we have our art music. The most popular stuff follows certain formats and tends to be very simple and direct, but sometimes you can't get by on just that. Sometimes you have to have a lot of depth in music, and depth often means complexity, although some music is simple and deep. You need both types, but there will always be less money and less fame for people who are trying to do something deep. | ||
Home Page Technique Technology Tour Dates Music Therapy | ||