An interesting question about minimalism...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

If a band make minimalistic music, let's say they're a slowcore band, and they freely admit that the reason they play minimal, quiet, slow music is because they aren't very good at playing, but they're still a good slowcore band, would you have a problem with them?

Just a thought...

― Callum (Callum), Monday, 28 October 2002 15:30 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't have a problem with people not playing instruments at all so I don't see why I should have a problem with people adapting their music to the limits of their technical ability.

("Good slowcore band"??)

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 28 October 2002 15:34 (twenty-four years ago)

dunnit restraint take a lot more effort and uh "skill" than bashin and crashin? (although all know playing at very high speed is a technicians game or best be.)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 28 October 2002 15:40 (twenty-four years ago)

I hate people who admit to not being good at something. I'll be the judge of that, and anyway, people who aren't good at stuff should either not do it, or not be passive-aggressive and fish for compliments all the time. Shit or get off the pot!

― dave q, Monday, 28 October 2002 15:56 (twenty-four years ago)

If minimalism is there thing, and they're good at it, then good for them. Although I think it'd be kind of limiting if they ever wanted to branch out.

Personally, I hate it when bands who aren't minimalistic all of a sudden decide that playing acoustic, and making everything as boring as possible is "minimalistic" and will win over the critics.

― David Allen, Monday, 28 October 2002 16:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Shit or get off the pot!

dave, does this mean you're going to stop recycling ilm posts for yr blog?

― yr faithful reader (dubplatestyle), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:02 (twenty-four years ago)

Thing is, to make their music creative, unique, and varied, for more than a couple of records, they need to have a range of distinctive techniques that they do work at and develop. This doesn't mean that they need to be virtuosic in terms of traditional uses of their instruments but if not they probably do have to become fairly accomplished in some non-traditional approach. In which case it just becomes a matter of semantics whether they are 'good at playing' or not - they've still developed a set of techniques to some level of achievement. I would broadly agree with dave q - anyone working at a serious, even professional, level who claims to not be good at his job is being disingenuous.

― sundar subramanian, Monday, 28 October 2002 16:25 (twenty-four years ago)

Assuming that slower musics take less skill is fairly silly. Holding slower tempos usually takes a bit more attention and absorbtion. Playing faster is a typical band response, usually because of adrenaline, aggression lapses (ha!), et al.

So yeah.

― gage-o, Monday, 28 October 2002 17:32 (twenty-four years ago)

I actually do find slower pieces much easier to learn.

― sundar subramanian, Monday, 28 October 2002 17:35 (twenty-four years ago)

As in, the slower movements of a piece are usually easier to learn than the faster movements. Playing fast is hard.

― sundar subramanian, Monday, 28 October 2002 17:36 (twenty-four years ago)

On guitar, it depends. Playing punk fast is easy, you just move your power chords up and down.

Playing individual notes can be hard. But then you start getting into that, "Playing more notes isn't better, less is more" thing that blues guys like to preach.

Harder to play doesn't mean better per se.

― David Allen, Monday, 28 October 2002 17:40 (twenty-four years ago)

Even then, shifting power chords slowly is probably easier than shifting them fast. I never said harder was better.

― sundar subramanian, Monday, 28 October 2002 18:05 (twenty-four years ago)

i think the question being asked is confusing minimalism (reich, glass, riley) with slow-core...

slowcore <> minimalism

with one exception (maybe) = earth's first record a bureaucratic desire for revenge

― gygax!, Monday, 28 October 2002 18:11 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes, but you can describe any music with plenty of space amd/or low volume and/or repeated phrases as minimal, just like you can, for example, describe something as modernist, without it actaully being Modernist although using 'minimal' instead of 'minmalist' would reduce confusion.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Monday, 28 October 2002 22:20 (twenty-four years ago)

Yeah, I didn't mean real minimalism, I just meant minimal.

Some interesting points, thankyou all.

― Callum (Callum), Monday, 28 October 2002 23:45 (twenty-four years ago)

off course I mean 'minimalist', and not 'minmalist'.

Although i really, really dig minmalism.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 00:22 (twenty-four years ago)

Yeah minmilism rcks.

― Callum (Callum), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 09:55 (twenty-four years ago)

"they aren't very good at playing, but they're still a good slowcore band, would you have a problem with them?"

Oh my, no! If I listened to stuff based on how technically good the musiciaship was, I'd be listening to shit like the Red Hot Chilli Peppers instead of Low and the Red House Painters.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 10:34 (twenty-four years ago)

I rarely care what artists think of their own work. They're their own worst critics and biggest fans. It only matters what I think. Me, me, me.

― matt riedl (veal), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:40 (twenty-four years ago)

See, I don't even like Low but they seemed fairly technically accomplished when I last saw them. More than the RHCP ever seemed to me.

― sundar subramanian, Tuesday, 29 October 2002 19:12 (twenty-four years ago)

See, I don't even like Low but they seemed fairly technically accomplished when I last saw them.

Yeah, all but Mimi as a drummer. Great voice though.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 19:26 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.