― nathalie, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
George Gosset makes some good points above about ways that it is now possible to make music, but I don't agree that traditional instrumental facility (I struggle to find a precise term for it) is an "obsolete" set of skills. It seems to me that it is not nearly as obsoleted by new technology as realist representational painting is by photography.
When I was in high school, I very much liked the idea of anyone and everyone making music, without any particular traditional technical skills. At some point late in high school I realized that much if not most of my favorite music actually did rely on that type of musicianship.
I am not claiming that I "discovered" that music rooted in traditional ideals of musicianship is actually better, but the fact that I could come to prefer it (overall), despite having started out at a point of being enthusiastic about other approaches (playing with squeaky doors, programming synthesizers) suggests that at the very least the two approaches lead to different results, and newer technology (or a new Cage-influenced approach to music) have not made that earlier kind of music obsolete. Not to my ears, baby.
Also, I find something exciting about seeing/hearing live music performed in real time on instruments of some sort (they don't necessarily have to be traditional--could include someone slapping a plastic hat).
Isn't programmed music going to tend to lose the subtle irregularities which will result if a person is playing an instrument in real time, unless they are somehow approximated as well in the programming? Does anyone know enough to analyze that level and program it? Possibly. Drum machines (for example) get on my nerves because, the way they are often used anyway, it's the same exact sound each time. If a drummer plays drums, there must be some slight variation each time.
It's late and I probably have too much cafeine in my system.
― DeRayMi, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I do hope that no one mistook me for a fan of prog rock. I too find myself bored by technical flash over feel. I would rather listen to the The Clash, Nirvana or Talking Heads rather than bands like Yes, Rush or Dream Theater. Yet I really do enjoy the music of such artists like Peter Gabriel, Brian Eno, David Sylvian, Massive Attack, Sting, Robert Fripp, Tool, Ani DiFranco and singer songwriters such as Joni Mitchell, Paul Simon, Tracey Chapman, Neil Finn, Bruce Cockburn, Jonatha Brooke, Lyle Lovett, etc.... I would think that these musicians that I mentioned are filled with just as much passion about the music they make as any other band or artist out there. It's just that their music appeals to the mind rather than aiming for the body.
I enjoy listening to a solid rhythm section : drummers that can keep a consistent tempo throughout a song and bassists that understand the concept of playing in the pocket. I tend to be impressed by guitarists who know a little more than just a few chords on the instrument and any musician that can handle playing in many varying styles outside of just basic rock always receives my highest respect. I guess I just can't comprehend listening to anything bordering on incompetence or lacking in professionalism...what an odd concept, huh?
― brian, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― dave q, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
the question of craft — when a bonus, when not — is really interesting: PINEFOX TO THREAD (i know i know, he's busy wiv his book or his record or whatevah it is)
dave what was your "rock school" thread called?
― mark s, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― david h, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Dr. C, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Whereas say, FZ's 'guitar' album is the 'Frank Zappa show', he will not allow other musicians to take the limelight away from Frank. They are there for decorative purposes. But I like his solos and I go back to it.
I don't care abt Sting. When this guy opens his mouth I just run for the hills. And as for Fripp, I have Crimson's Red that's a fantastic group effort. he is a great soloist, but he will submit to the rest of the group, to benefit the whole.
In this question, the answers are not definitive.
― Julio Desouza, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Yeah when I listen to hiphop or dance my mind just dulls and my feet start moving on their own, it's like the pied piper I swear.
― Ronan, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― charlie va, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I disagree entirely. Someone like Sting isn't aiming for your mind, he's aiming for your wallet. I don't think you're going to get anyone around here to give on Sting, although surprisingly enough you will find people (including myslef) who listen to Yes and King Crimson.
The bigger problem with your comment is the one that Ronan points out- -it bespeaks a certain pomposity and belief in a heirarchy on which "serious" pop music is better and more thoughtful than "nonserious" pop music, even if you're not claiming that outright. This is a dichotomy that many people on this board including myself believe is totally inaccurate.
― J, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I am only familiar with some of the names you mention here. I am somewhat surprised to see Eno mentioned since he has often said things like, "If you here someone playing the same chord over and over again on one of my recordings, you know it's me," denying that he is competent as a instrumentalist. How much of what has traditionally been taught in music schools in necessary to set up tape loops, pick out interesting synthesizer textures, find the right people to collaborate with?
What about music speaking to the heart? I realize this is a problematic break-down (mind, body, heart, perhaps soul/spirit), but I still find it useful. To me, Fripp at his best is quite moving. Some of the guitar playing on the two Fripp/Eno collaborations, as well as many of Fripp's cameo appearances, sounds anything but cerebral. I would think that most of the singer/song-writer sorts that you mention also would think of themselves as appealing to the heart, to varying degrees.
Having not so long ago half-jokingly claimed the existence of an ILM Mafia, I feel slightly guilty that I can't help joining everyone else who has nothing good to say about Sting. Extreme bashing of artists is not generally my style, but from what I have heard of him, I'm not interested. I certainly don't dislike him because he is technically proficient.
On the whole, I share your preference for some sort of recognizable playing ability, but it's neither sufficient to keep my interest, nor is it necessary in order to create worthwhile music. (Am I just repeating myself?) I know a lot of people around here would disagree with me, but I do think that not having good technique is more limiting than having it. (I know technique is broader than what I have been talking about, and would include tunrtablism and other relative new skill sets.)
I'm hardly a Sting apologist (although somewhere was playing "Walking On The Moon" today and it made me think of The Dismemberment Plan) but I find statements like this a bit iffy.
― Tim, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Yeah, you're right. I shouldn't post first thing in the morning.
"Someone like Sting isn't aiming for your mind, he's aiming for your wallet."
My mind must be real close to where I keep my wallet, because he continues to write songs, like Ghost Story for example, that somehow hit the mark and never fail to keep my mind's attention whenever I am listening. I first heard that song at a time when my forty-nine year old aunt was dying of cancer and it hit me hard. His intelligent usage of metaphors makes what is obviously a highly personal lyric applicable to any person dealing with the grief that surrounds a family while someone who is important to their lives is dying or has already passed.
And please let me know of any professional musician who wouldn't like to be successful and make shitloads of money doing the one thing that they really enjoy? I am always amused when some music fan would suggest that musicians aren't in this industry to make money; that they would prefer to starve. I highly respect any musician, especially David Sylvian, who is true to himself and to his art. But once that musician has decided to sign a contract with a label (large or independent), they have decided that they wish to be compensated for their art and thus begins their own pursuit of "aiming for your wallet". For this very reason, I've always felt that there are no "sell outs" in the music business. It's all product. Even an entirely independent singer such as Ani DiFranco is creating product. She just doesn't have to utilize a record label to sell herself. It's all product, I know that sounds cynical. When it comes down to it, they all are aiming for the wallet. It's just that some artists are better at it and the fact that they can actually play their instruments with some true ability never hurts.
It's just that some artists are better at it and the fact that they can actually play their instruments with some true ability never hurts.
That's just silliness, and appears to be a reiteration of your personal prejudices in light of the contrary arguments that have been raised by numerous posters. David Sylvian is not a virtuoso, neither is Ani DiFranco--although both arguably make "intelligent" music, I don't think that either would proclaim tremendous technical proficiency. Moreover, in re Sting: the ability to turn metaphors or write lyrics has absolutely nothing to do with instrumental ability, which is ostensibly what your initial question was about.
It's absolutely fine that you enjoy these performers, and its absolutely fine that what they do resonates with you. But don't try to turn your personal tastes into some absolute criteria of musicianship, particularly if you haven't thought it through. If you want to talk about 'musicianship', fine. But at least let's talk about people who are actually virtuosos. Otherwise, your question becomes "why don't you like the music I like?" or "why don't you think that 'intelligent pop' is any good?"
I might've been posting while you put up the retraction so I must have originally missed it, sorry about that. Anyway, I completely agree with you that the subject of the original thread has gone awry. I wish to say that I wasn't just writing in response to your comment, although it was the only one I cited and that was an error on my part for not being more specific.
I began on the musicianship concept and obviously made a mistake in listing Sting (even though I truly believe he is one hell of a bassist)because that only served to elicit the obligatory negative responses about his penchant for pretentiousness and the large ego. It was to those comments that I was attempting to address. And I am sure that I did not do that well.
Thanks for all the posts. I've enjoyed every opinion so far.
― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Chupa-Cabras, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Old Fart!!!, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Someone played me some Yngwie Malmsteen once. I was appalled.
― Nick Southall, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
That second strain of thinking I gradually realised was itself a conservative holdover from an era long past - but deprogramming takes a lot of time and effort. I'm probably never going to want to take quality musicianship as anything other than a 'neutral' quality - can make for good music, can make for bad - because the evidence of my ears is overwhelmingly that low-quality musicianship or 'easy' compositional/creative practises can move me so much.
― Tom, Monday, 8 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link