I can't take credit for this idea, and I can't say that it's Victor's idea (though it may be). I first heard it articulated by a cat named Dave Welsch, one of the instructors at the camp, and it has been perhaps the strongest guiding principle for my practice since I heard it. And again, any issues with the concept are likely to be with my explanation, rather than of the concept itself...
Imagine a Venn diagram (those three overlapping circles, each representing a concept, where each pair overlaps and there is a smaller central area in which all three circles overlap - that is considered the "sweet spot" where all three concepts merge.
Let our Venn diagram represent a Complete Musician (my term). Each of the three concept/elements is essential to musical wholeness. A musician can succeed with only one of the three (rare) or two of the three (more common), but all would agree that the best AND most well rounded musicians are strong in all three.
Let's call the first circle "Musical Knowledge". This would include things like chords and chord tones, scales, arpeggios, music theory, ability to read. It is possible for someone to be very strong in this area (but weak in others) and not be a great musician, in the same way that it is possible for someone to have a brilliant vocabulary and knowledge of the English language, but not be very interesting in a conversation. Alternately, such a person might have little depth in a topic, but still sound great talking about it.
Let's call the second circle "Creativity", really, "having something to say". Some of the early blues musicians may have succeeded on this strength alone, without a great knowledge of musical theory or sometimes even great technique, but with a tremendous ability to communicate and have audiences resonate with the emotions that they could project. This would be analogous to someone who is not fluent in English, but may be a fascinating partner in conversation anyway because of his depth of knowledge or emotional expressiveness.
The third circle in our Venn diagram we'll call "Technique". Many people approach this as the most important of the three, and rock music in particular has plenty of examples of people who gain fame or noteriety because of their technique, without having much to communicate or much knowledge of music.
Some people have succeeded based on strength in just one area. More have been successful with two - we can think of plenty of examples of fiery and knowelgeable technicians who are sometimes criticized for lack of emotional expressiveness, or of people who played more simply than their peers (less "technique") but had incredible musical knowledge and depth and creativity and expression. Some people might describe Monk or Miles this way - certainly not the most technical of their peers (think Art Tatum and Dizzy) but absolutely memorable and brilliant musicians.
But the musician who has mastery in all three areas - technique, knowledge, and creativity - this is the cat who can play in any style, setting, or situation, and shine.
So since my experience at WootCamp, this has guided my practice - ensuring that I am working on things from all three areas (musical knowledge, creativity, and technique). Musical knowledge for me currently includes working on "Chord Studies for the Electric Bass", studying the repertoire of James Jamerson and James Brown, and an analytic approach to Real Book tunes, as well as exercises based on Hindustani music and rhythmic subdivisions.
Technique for me currently involves making my right hand as steady as possible, so playing 16th note funk grooves for extended periods is the biggest chunk of work there, along with focusing on noticing when I tense up unnecessarily and working on releasing that tension.
Creativity is perhaps the hardest to describe via text, so I'll leave that one alone for now.
Do you feel that the Players School addresses all three areas, or focuses primarily on Knowledge, trusting that students will work on creativity and technique on their own?
