How valuable or detrimental is having a discernable style?
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2024 3:38 pm
I've never really developed my own style, I'm just someone who can copy a lot of other styles. On one hand that allows me to be pretty versatile, but on the other I'm not a player where people can hear something I play and instantly know it's me. But I've been toying with the notion of throwing all that overboard, and taking command of my own individual style, for better or worse.
Sometimes it's worse. Frank Rosolino used to lament that he didn't get more studio work, but was only called for solos. Both of those were due to the fact that he was so instantly identifiable when he played. OTOH, many of the gigs he did get he got specifically because they wanted him.
I've always prided myself on being a chameleon: someone who can play a wide variety of styles, with a wide variety of approaches, and do them all with some authenticity. But these days I am starting to doubt that is an asset. Maybe it's even a detriment.
My thinking "back when" was that being versatile would give me more opportunities and open me up to doing a wider variety of gigs. But in the end, I'm nobody. Just a ghost. Not someone anyone can quantify. Not anyone about whom people say, "Wow, I really dig her interpretation." And when I die there will be nothing left of me.
So now I'm thinking being stylistically versatile just makes me fungible. And that's not good. Rice is fungible. No one cares which grain of rice they get. One grain of rice is as good as any other. There's nothing unique or special about a grain of rice. No one ever stood in line overnight to get into a grain of rice concert. (<-- Yeah, I know that's a stupid sentence, but it amused me, and after all, that's what's really important. ) There's not a single thread on this forum about how awesome some versatile player is who just blends with any situation. There are thousands of good trombonists we never talk about because they don't have their own identifiable sound.
What are your thoughts about developing an identifiable sound, one that makes you stand out rather than blend in? Good? Bad? Neither?
Sometimes it's worse. Frank Rosolino used to lament that he didn't get more studio work, but was only called for solos. Both of those were due to the fact that he was so instantly identifiable when he played. OTOH, many of the gigs he did get he got specifically because they wanted him.
I've always prided myself on being a chameleon: someone who can play a wide variety of styles, with a wide variety of approaches, and do them all with some authenticity. But these days I am starting to doubt that is an asset. Maybe it's even a detriment.
My thinking "back when" was that being versatile would give me more opportunities and open me up to doing a wider variety of gigs. But in the end, I'm nobody. Just a ghost. Not someone anyone can quantify. Not anyone about whom people say, "Wow, I really dig her interpretation." And when I die there will be nothing left of me.
So now I'm thinking being stylistically versatile just makes me fungible. And that's not good. Rice is fungible. No one cares which grain of rice they get. One grain of rice is as good as any other. There's nothing unique or special about a grain of rice. No one ever stood in line overnight to get into a grain of rice concert. (<-- Yeah, I know that's a stupid sentence, but it amused me, and after all, that's what's really important. ) There's not a single thread on this forum about how awesome some versatile player is who just blends with any situation. There are thousands of good trombonists we never talk about because they don't have their own identifiable sound.
What are your thoughts about developing an identifiable sound, one that makes you stand out rather than blend in? Good? Bad? Neither?