musicianship?

boy, can I be way off base or what?.... when I take time out of my life to listen to music, I (paraphrasing Fripp here)"like the playing to be f***ing good". Am I too cerebral and lacking of emotion that I would want to listen to music that could be labeled as art, with top notch musicians performing at such a high caliber? I tend not to think that, since this so-called emotionless music does bring out many emotions in me.

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?

'if it was completely soulless and you have a smug look of accomplishment on your face'...then I will LOVE it. Oh yes.

One point that always gets overlooked in this "technique vs. feel" thing (IMHO 'feel' IS 'technique' but 'technique' is not always 'feel')is that the 'derision' you cite is often to do with the artist's motives (usually only WHEN the intentions are stated or transparent, to get those accusations of bad faith on critics' part out of the way...) - i.e., players in the jazz/classical/improv/whatever field are with highly developed technique are usually given credit (here, as well as print media) for said technique - perhaps because the act of pursuing forms of music music where the 'technique'-as-advancing-genre/form implies a subordination of 'content' to 'form' thus displaying the necessary act of sacrifice on the artist's part to validate the work's being listened to and evaluated. (i.e., 'No sell out').
Whereas there's something off-putting about somebody who spent 10 years at Berklee, knows about Bartok, George Russell and Korean modes, yet plays flash 2-bar guitar solos over Savage Garden records for a living. Perhaps some find such overly mercenary attitudes (particularly if the stuff is NOT transcendent - nothing wrong with cranked-out factory music obviously)somewhat unseemly?

Sorry - the mythic Savage Garden sessioneer I refer to is not disparaged for 'making a living' as I insinuated but 'making a vastly more comfortable living than is warranted by his contribution to music relative to the contribution he COULD make if he was willing to settle for an ADEQUATE living as opposed to an EXTRAVAGANT one'

brian i think you're right that eg sting (ten summoner's tale-era sting) is basically not popular here: so you must stay and talk about what you like more, and graciously ignore the hataz... it is very easy to get into the unthinking groove of hating, and to use [x] as an icon of what you dislike, and good when someone comes along and shakes that up

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?

when they establish Punk School , will Frank Kogan and I get invited to lecture?

dave q - OTM.

I'll be the janitor.

You've got to take each record on its merits. I was listening to 'Out to Lunch' by Eric Dolphy yesterday and its remarkable how the musical virtuosity of the individual musicians is integrated in the group, that's quite an album.

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.

it's just that their music appeals to the mind rather than the body

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.

What does "in the pocket" mean? I've heard the phrase before but have never understood it.

It's just that their music appeals to the mind rather than aiming for the body.

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.

BTW, woke up shocked to find that I agreed with George!

"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 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 disagree entirely. Someone like Sting isn't aiming for your mind, he's aiming for your wallet."

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.

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.

Yeah, you're right. I shouldn't post first thing in the morning.

I didn't intend this to be a thread defending Sting in particular or any other musicians who are derided for being highly successful throughout the world and are mainly considered to be elite artists in the realm of music today, but yet, being the idiot that I have always found myself to be, I take the bait...

"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.

Well, first of all, I've already retracted that statement as a rather thoughtless comment on my part, and your comments in regard to its validity are fair enough. However, I'm almost tempted to say something equally thoughtless now, as your last sentence indicates that you're not really interested in hearing opinions relating to the question you asked.

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?"

J,

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.

at punk school being the janitor is surely more punky than being a lecturer, dr c!!

For some reason Royal Trux seems like a good band to bring up here. Because RT plays in a blues idiom, even if you've never heard their songs before you instinctively feel the "right" way they "ought" to be played, but it never quite matches up with the rhythmic and melodic idosyncrasies they bring to bear... the correct thing is like a ghost car puttering along beside you, racing the track at the most optimum angle, taking all the curves at exactly the right speed... but you're in the REAL car, which is swerving crazily... the difference between the two is what makes Royal Trux good.

Bri for the record I for one didn't say anything about Sting's ego. I said he's not a good bassist any more. There's no attitude there any more, no spiky energy. Sure, he might be as technically competent (you would have to make the case though) but he's not a session player, he's Sting. We expect more from him than competence. Or at least some of us did, once.

And the janitor would pass up prog and dance records to the kids "This is the real thing!"

Hmmm... I think this whole debate is a bit moot when an obviously cerebral musician like David Bowie thinks this version of his "Space Oddity" is "a piece of art that I couldn't have conceived of, even with half of Colombia's finest export products in me"!!!

― Old Fart!!!, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

(..End Tag)

Janitor at Punk School? Isn't that dangerously close to being Noodles from The Offspring?

Someone played me some Yngwie Malmsteen once. I was appalled.

As a Brit who generally seems to like a lot of unskilful music, I feel I have to point out that if you're as unmusical as me you simply CAN'T TELL when someone is a 'good' or 'bad' instrumentalist, so my preferences might well be purely accidental. I think they're not, though - the pop discourse I grew up on had a big influence on me in two ways. First off was people telling me the music I liked was crap because it was unmusical and too easy (eg. synthpop, programmed music, pop) - so to counter this there was a second strain of thinking picked up from the NME whereby musicianship was somehow suspicious or laughable outside certain carefully constrained non- rock contexts.

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.