I'm an American, and I appreciate instrumental prowess (as does most everyone here, even the UKers!), but it's almost always a secondary or tertiary consideration to interesting musical ideas. An example: Stanley Jordan probably has the most innovative and accomplished guitar techinique of anyone currently working in the music business. He's incredibly accomplished and widely respected. But his music is boring as hell. I'd much rather listen to someone play guitar badly but interestingly.
― J, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I think you will find some positive mention of Fripp in several threads here, though I'm less sure about Sting. You will find threads praising jazz and modern classical musicians, who generally have some facility with their instrument. Also, there are a lot more Americans here than might appear at first glance.
I think that you're making too broad a generalization. On the other hand, pop music in general tends to have lower standards of technical competence than some other genres, and a lot of people think that progressive rock's attempt to broaden rock and roll loses much of rock's spirit through its complexity.
― DeRayMi, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I wanted to add that a lot of people here (not me, incidentally) are interested in forms of electronic/DJ-oriented music which don't require traditional instrumental competency or knowledge of music theory. I don't think they like it for that reason though, in most cases.
Tight. Heavy emphasis should be placed on the word "traditional" in the previous paragraph, since turntablism requires serious skill and electronic composition often requires an understanding of polyrhythm and tone that traditional musicians simply don't have.
The emphasis in societal and academic notions of musicianship and musical competence has always been on playing an instrument. Piano? Clarinet? Good for you. Sampler? Turntable? *blank stare*. Of course, being an excellent pianist is fine, but investing all musical value here is a mode of thinking not really akin to many of the pop-centric sensibilities on this forum (pop meaning pop/hiphop/electronic/etc, non-academic). As J said, a complex technically brilliant guitar solo is competent, sure, but to many of our ears it can register as a messy and uninteresting abundance. Likewise, somebody like Sting may be written off as boring but his capability with an instrument is mostly arbitrary in the judgement being made.
― Honda, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Contrast to a bluegrass band where everyone is playing a zillion miles an hour, great technical proficiency, but clearly enjoying the moment and letting the music take them where it may, well, I enjoy that far more than hearing some guy wend his way through some metal whackeroo solo just to prove how good he is.
Of course, there's generalization going on both in the intial question and this response: there are surely some people in metal who clearly love what they do, and some people in bluegrass who clearly don't care as long as they land that triple-axle...er, that whacked-out mandolin solo.
And the reason people deride Sting is that he's fucking boring these days.
― Sean Carruthers, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― matthew m., Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Paul, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Ron, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― dleone, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
others here have alluded to the ways music's made these days which are many and varied -- a very complicated piano solo could be programmed pain-stakingly but easily with no virtusosity whatsoever into a computer
earlier in the 20th century in Mexico (largely computer free then) Conlon Nancarrow was faced with the problem of not having any super fast musos to hand and not enough instruments/pianos for his purposes anyway, so he programmed 2 pianolas (or "player painos") in sync, and produced music with (amoung other things) lot's of piano flourishes and timescales that extended classic boogie-woogie piano into rhythms I think a lot of pianists would have had a hard time keeping to, the rhythms going in a very unfamiliar and possible counter-intuitive playing directions
Wergo (German label) recorded 5 cds of this music, which is Nancarrow's great legacy -- whilst recording this music the pace of pianlo playing was such that broken piano strings were a frequent frustration
now where's the music ? on the pianola rolls, in Nancarrow's head, in his notes, in the transpositions for two painists that were attempted from time to time, in the digital recordings that Wergo made in 1988, on the CDs that were presumably edited ?
if Sting were to transpose all this stuff onto bass guitar, record it in a 24 track studio and use a computer to pitch shift all the notes from the bass to the pitch they were meant to be, i don't think it would mean sting was a great muso, a great music patron maybe, but i don't think he'll be doing anything like that in a hurry
nowadays a lot of music is sequenced or edited into a whole, and rock music has been using overdubbing for 35-ish years now to produce studio results bands usually found impossible to emulate live
so i think the earlier period of history where painters who could simply capture a person's face accurately or musicians who can render great guitar solos has past, these very proficient but rather mechanistic virtuosos now being less neccesary to produce music, with so may ways of doing it
supposedly with computers enabling sounds from any souces to be yanked in, manipulated and pasted to suite the composer, composers now are faced with an embarrasement of riches -- do they go the elctronic way -- concertos for amplified cello for example -- the best way to the result the composer wants but unheard of thirty years ago -- getting the messy, time-consuming and costly musician phase of music production to the point where it's a manoeuvreable variable, that's been achieved
so theoretically there needn't be any link between how good a musician is and how good the music -- sting is a good example, supposedly having sacked several people from the initial invocations of "the police" because of average musical ability, these days he can hire a good bassist or guitarist for his stuff or program one -- his appalling performance on a TV award show, the Grammys ? I don't know which, dragged us through all the most obvious hits, most of which were achieved 15 years ago, and presented us with a smug sting (and is it just me or does anyone else think names like "sting" or "bono" are annoyingly dumb anyway), a sting who seemed to be the first person there to think he was worthy of some life-time achievement award, and not at all surprised
sting represents the worst of the smug-middle-aged rockers, like gabriel and collins, who can afford to employ apparently endless backing bands, orchestras, spectacles usually involving the most banal of music, and in gabriels and stings case, music inspired, indeed invented in and arguably stolen from the very 3rd world countries these guys would like us to believe they support in some way. the music is then copied and hacked to suit middle-class easy listeners. sting's music really has been downhill ever since his days with the police, who made "Chost in The Machine" and "Synchonicity" their pinnacle i suppose, though I seem to remember some sillier named album, "dream of the twenty-three pink rhinoceros" ? being nimble and jazz-ish but still very obviousley precocious and generally lyrically far-fetched and pretentious -- yeah, all down hill since then -- twenty years ago ?
for me sting had some energy 20 years ago when he borrowed Bradford Marsalis from jazz and produced some interestingly different easy listening music -- but calling him a composer ? he's spent, had his life-time achievement award even; and we're all sick of that silly voice of his and how young and fresh he still manages to look but not sound, and of his travelling circus style show -- is he the current John Denver perhaps ? ok so he is clearly musically competentent but as far as i'm concerned any faith i had in him once he got away from the stifling police format was lost with all the pretence and how oh he may spend 2% of his $200 million fortune on some rain forest cause
"readers digest" composer maybe, but with all the resources his millions allow him he really has to me always appeared somone able to do stuff more interesting and more competent than he has done, so he may as well have taken music backwards ?
1984 and live aid and dire straits debuted this song about MTV with Sting guesting -- don't you think that running a song that sneakily pushed MTV into the public consciousness during a charity show with the whole world watching, does that not strike you as sleazy ? "I want my MTV" sang sting -- yeah he's singing about what was then a new thing MTV and he's meant to be sharing with the world in contemplation of starving millions in Ethiopia -- yeah what a lovely sincere guy -- a dire straits demograph sex symbol who is just boring
you know having to sit through "every breath you take" watching him play _that_ as he got his award, as if that is the pinnacle of his achievements, then he has not delivered as far as I'm concerned -- he's a performer, an entertainer -- middle-brow champion ?
― George Gosset, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― 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