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.)
― DeRayMi, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― brian, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― mark s, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― 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