Image vs Talent

Bowie & Madonna - maybe 15% talent to 85% talent. Insane Clown Posse - 110% image to -10% talent.

Duano, obviously Madonna has you fooled. ;-) Seriously, Image vs *Musical* Talent or what?

Musical talent Raw chops

If somebody has a really dull appearance than their lack of imagination probably applies in other areas of their lives as well, like songwriting and production.

But then, people who take alot of trouble over their image are usually too self-obsessed to be interesting. Oh, forget I ever tried to answer this, sorry.

What about musicians who could only keep up their image if they took the correct drugs? Like Iggy Pop and maybe um Rick James and Shane McGowan and President Kennedy and Adolf Hitler? I always thought there was something disturbing about that.

my week beats your year

Image vs "Chops" (one of the most horrible yet sometimes apt words in music, it makes me think of mutton and Gladstone):

Talent/Chops can be (should be?) invisible to the layman. I only know Steely Dan has chops because people tell me they do - I can't really hear it. Whereas Image is obviously entirely visible, and is also extremely fluid, being something openly generated in the performer- media-audience flux and less subject to the predations of attempted objectivity than the 'talent' is.

This makes comparing them hard and a bit silly. Especially since the virtuosic display of chops itself carries "image" overtones.

Sorry to be the pinefox, but what is 'chops'?

AAARRGGGHHHHHH... chops...

I don't know, but it's often accompanied in talk (by long-haired music dudes of the types who work in guitar shops and studios) of "riffs" and "licks".

It's, erm... metalhead slang for "virtuosity" or "craft" or erm, "playing ability". But with a very wank-rock, overbearing, Yngwie Malmsteen 1000-notes-per-second overtone to it.

'shredding' is my fave

phew! i didn't know what chops was either, and was embarrassed. how the hell could i not know, i thought. now i've found out why i don't know, and i'm not embarrassed, i'm relieved.

of course, this relief is tempered by the fact that i now know what chops is, and if i ever have the misfortune to come across people discussing chops i will understand what they are talking about. today is a sad day

Tom and Kate, doesn't what you're saying *here* somewhat counter what you said over at So-Bad-Its-Brilliant? (As I haven't actually looked, the short answer may be NO...)

Mutton & Gladstone = great name for a band (or a ventriloquist act).

Nope, compliments it. I know that people have chops because their music is presented to me as such, i.e. cause of the discourse not the music (not that you can actually separate them, granted). Similarly I know that people have anti-chops because their music is presented to me as such. Yngwie Malmsteen and The Shaggs = two sides of the same coin, their reputations precede them.

1) I don't think I've contributed to the "so bad it's brilliant" thread, except to ask for an explanation of Ping Pong Bitches.

2) erm... if I interpret right, you see a contradiction between disliking "chops" and our comments on image needing to be backed up by talent?

Talent and chops are not the same thing. You can teach a monkey "chops" by rote. (go to any guitar store, sit down outside the booths where people try out their new amps, and listen to people displaying their chops without a modicum of talent.)

Chops - genius = nothing. Genius - chops = something imperfect. You have to have craft *and* inspiration.

However, on "chops" - no one likes a showoff. As someone has already said, if you feel the need to constantly rub your chops in the listener's face, chances are the listener won't want to hear. As Johnny Marr once said, "The reason people like Yngwie Malmsteen play so many notes is cause they can't find the RIGHT ones."

This is starting to sound suspiciously like my rants on modern art, so I'm going to stop now.

Hmmm. In order to prove you both wrong, I have to defend Yngwie, right? Very clever, Mr Bond, very clever indeed.

A Mark Sinker defence of Yngwie Malmsteen. I know people who'd pay good money for that.

Why is it always guitar players who get bludgeoned with this "chops=wank" thing? Nobody ever complained about John Coltrane or Keith Moon 'jerking off'. Also, the guitar-wank thing only comes up when the player uses a certain type of thin, 'fizzy'(hot-rodded) outboard distortion sound - I don't hear John Mclaughlin or even (god help us) Ted Nugent being called 'wankers', and they use a more 'naturalistic' sound (i.e. early-70s overloaded Marshall).

Good money would be key. And payment upfront.

No one ever says it about Keith Moon, because he seemed to have passion and lunacy and talent guiding his chops.

However, talk about Niel Peart (sp?) and Rush? Fucking wank-chops left, right and center! On the bass- Flea and other finger-poppers: WANK-CHOPS!!! Singers of the type Hocus Pocus by Focus took the piss out of; WANK-CHOPS!!!

It's not limited solely to guitar players, by any means. But just something about the personality, timbre and sound of the instrument seems to *attract* the born show-off type.

And I say that, *as* a guitarist, so I'm allowed. ;-)

Now about those noodles...

Noodles, licks, chops: this guitar-wank sure is TASTY!!

Bwah hah hah! Oh, I'm so unintentionally punny.

I am actually cooking noodles right now, not noodling on a guitar solo. Mmm, Batchelor's saucy noodles. Mmmm, SAUCY!!!

Certain guitar tones are more acceptable to people for some strange reason - like in England, where, despite the fact that punk is now 25 years old, actual playing of instruments is still frowned upon, unless it's by stoned, mumbling oafs like Bernard Butler and John Squire and their repulsive offspring like OCS and Toploader, for whom music stopped somewhere between Buffalo Springfield and 'Astral Weeks'. I've been told that this is because nobody can afford music lessons.

When I am paid what I intend to ask, to defend the Malm, I shall naturally be setting aside a handsome percentage to fund a Trust, that the deserving English poor may in perpetuity be able to learn to play the Yngwie way.

The ILM Foundation (M for yer man, obviously) will be my way of giving something *back* to the community.

'Wank-Chops', file next to 'Word to the Motherfucker' as brilliant terms to be dropped in every conversation about music.

Re: Wank

what's the difference between, say, Televison and Steely Dan wankery? A question I could never answer and have always wanted to hear (see?) explained.

Television do their own wanking; Steely Dan get others to wank for them.

A beautiful thread, this. I think that a collective ILM Festschrift in honor of Yngwie would be the way to go.

dj wank-chops played at nesh earlier this year

An interesting question, Larms.

First, although I don't particularly care for Steely Dan, I think you'll find that Tom was saying that Steely Dan are an example of a band who, although they *have* great technical skill and "chops", don't feel the need to rub it in your face.

But to the Television question... it's funny, because Television were probably the last of the NYC art-punk movement for me to really understand or appreciate. It's much easier to "get" Talkingheads or Blondie or the like. I really did find the jazzwank guitar of Television hard to penetrate for a long time, and almost disliked them because of it.

The only explanation I can really offer is this: Television's jazzwank chops are gently wrapped inside the sort of melodic dronerock that appeals to me. Steely Dan's are wrapped in the sort of post-Eagles stoner music that doesn't appeal to me.

Simple as that? maybe.

Also, with regards to wank-chops, I point to my former hero, Mr. Johnny Marr again, who says that the best guitar solos are those you can sing along with. Now while I can (and sometimes do) sing along with the guitar solo from Stairway to Heaven (wank-chops at their finest), and I'm sure that Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston probably *can* sing along with Yngwie, it's a good rule of thumb.

And Tarden, this has nothing to do with punk, or with playing *ability* or any of those things. It has to do with taste and discretion and the ability to be understated, and excellent without showing off. I could say something about national character traits, but I've already got in too much trouble for such things this week.

Actually what I was saying is that as a non-musician I have no idea where any playing falls on the wonderful-to-disasterous scale. Yngwie plays fast guitar. So do the Wedding Present on "Take Me!", say. I can't play a note of guitar so the only reason I 'know' YM is harder to do than WP is that the discourse around the music tells me so.

No critical comment on any of the bands I mentioned was intended, and I don't think chops are bad. I think when the music becomes 'about' the chops rather than anything else then I can't get much out of it. Turntablism fits in here too. So, you might say, do the Avalanches, though I think there the discourse does them a disservice.

Sorry to be Nick Dastoor, but I've never heard of 'chops' either. Absolutely bizarre word. I can't imagine where you people hang around to pick up words like that.

Music equipment stores. Rehearsal studios. Recording studios. Guitar Player Magazine...

What's wrong with 'showing off'? I'm always told it's 'boring for the listener', but isn't most music? Musicians can be a lot of things, but "considerate" usually doesn't amount to much. Plus, it's great watching skilled people assert their technical superiority over a passive audience, the more condescendingly the better.

The Avalanches are a curious case. I doubt that I've read much about them that doesn't throw out the statistics -- amaze at a record that blends 800 samples from 600 records, or whatever. On the surface it seems about as interesting and relevant as mentioning the number of time changes in a Yes song as argument for its quality (and you would never know without the discourse around it), but the record transcends that line of criticism. You can hear the degree of difficulty in the record even though it's seamless, but an appreciation of the effort and skill isn't necessary in order to enjoy the music: It's prog and punk all at once. Is it the nature of hip-hop (probably not that simple: Kid Koala sounds like Yngwie to me) or is the sound of the Avalanches record simply more approachable than guitar wank?

If I wanted to watch someone masturbate, I'd got to the £1 peep show down in Soho, instead of blowing £12.50 to see some wanker at the Jazz Cafe, thank you very much.

Tarden: audiences are never passive: they talk, eye each other up, snog, scratch their arses, drink, sometimes concentrate - none of which are 'passive'. Live performance of technically difficult material seems rather tragic to me, a wasted effort, like a chimp in a zoo performing some incredibly elaborate grooming or mating ritual for onlookers who don't care. Similar material on record has a definite appeal for the people who care or understand what's going on.

Kate: My knowledge of the Soho sex trade isn't extensive but I doubt you can get any kind of live peep show action for £1. ;)

Laundry bills might be less after a night at the Jazz Cafe, though...

No, because it's still wankery. I see it like this: long extended guitar solos (or the new fangled concept of "How many samples can I put in one song!?") that strike me as being nonproductive to the essence of the song are wanking. It's actually just down to your perception: I could tell you all day that I think John Squire is a guitar wanker with technical talent and no passion, but if you don't have that view point you aren't going to understand why I hold it. That's the problem with the entire wank vs. nonwank conversation.

I mean, a better example for me is that Generation Terrorists is guitar wank while The Holy Bible is not, even though both are terribly laden with guitar solos. It's just that in GT, James sounds like he's tacking them on (in some cases literally: the demos and original cuts lacked the lengthy solos while the album cuts gained them once the record company threw the band more money), just because he CAN. On THB, the guitar solos don't sound like he's doing them because he CAN. He's doing them because he damn well NEEDS to. When he goes nuts on Faster, it's because that's the natural outcome of the song, it's what it's propelling to. When he goes nuts on that ending of You Love Us that I refuse to listen to EVER, it's because, hey, look, he's a better guitarist than the other two guitarists. I mean, fucking duh, they couldn't even PLAY guitar much less do a solo, what's the point?

So yeah, that's basically the difference between guitar wanking and guitar necessity, but if you can actually see the need in that endless annoying guitar solo in You Love Us, then you're not going to get my point on it. This is impossible to discuss and come to a consensus, unfortunately. But what fun is consensus anyhow.

I suppose to me the hip hop/dance equivalent is like Jurassic 5 (wank) versus Outkast (necessity). I can't explain it other than it feels like J5 are reading a textbook while Outkast are propelled by some force other than common sense or sheer talent to create something out of a pile of other shit. You might not see that personally.

Oh, and to actually answer the question put forth: Image IS talent.

But Tom! The infamous £1 Peep Show! It's on... erm, that street at the very end of Berwick Street... Broadwick or Brewer or something like that. It is, indeed, still £1. You can't even get a slice of pizza in the city of London for £1, but you can watch nekkid people!

Berwick Street goes into Harper's Passage, which is indeed loaded with smut vendors - eg Harmony. But I've never lingered there long enough to see if there's a £1 peep show so I'll take your word for it. There is also a Brewer Street which has a few of them, it runs parallel to Old Compton though.

Pinefox: I got it from the Rolling Stone Album Guide, which would occasionally grudgingly chuck an extra half-star at a record for demonstrating "tight chops" etc.

Tom, I only know cause there's a Channel 6 song called "£1 Peep Show" and I didn't believe them, either, until I had visual proof! Damn, now if only I could get the C6 boys to strip off for £1... hmmm...

Kate is correct, insofar as there's a "shop" with "£1 peepshow" written on the window in big ol' Heritage of Yr Capital City lettering, somewhere in that vicinity (the passage she mentioned is where Raymonde's Revue Bar is, for example). As I understand these exchanges, however, the amount in question is paid so as to be in receipt of space in which, and live viewing object over which to, er, jazz-solo.

Kate's plan, which was to go watch someone soloing, would thus be an ad hoc arrangement not necessarily covered by the legend on the window.

Ahem, so I'm told etc etc.

Leave me alone, Mark, I'm still contemplating the idea of certain London dronerock bands replacing some wank-chop bass solos with nudity and masturbation. Especially amusing, considering the long lecture one Mr. Oliver P. Flanagan gave me about "getting rid of my hang-ups" last weekend.

Whoa, nelly, is it getting hot in here or is it just me?

Re: chops

don't you kids remember "cut your hair" (which is also a song about music, btw) -- "advertising looks and chops a must". I guess this is your protoypical indie anti-wank song, topped off with an ironic, non-wanky solo, and caught in the middle of the wankiest Pavement album there is. WANK!

oh, and thanks boom for a nice response to my question.

Oh dear lord, I better hope none of them, or their mates read this board.

After the online berrating I got, after making some casual (and I thought intensely amusing) remarks I made about the London Indie Scene being run by a secret elite conspiracy, and Steven Drew and Sean Price both being 12 foot lizards from outer space, I better watch what I say.

I have never considered any members of the London dronerock scene in any way shape or form involving "jazz-solo-ing" (OK, jazz cigarettes, maybe, but jazz solo-ing, no) and I love my boyfriend very much, and I am a nice girl and never go to peepshows, indeed.

::digs own grave even deeper::

Of course Sean Price isn't a 12 foot lizard.

He's a cyborg. Controlled by the lizards.

Peep shows and robots controlled by lizards, I do love all this.

I guess my own answer to the original question way up yonder is that image never hurts. But it must be terribly trying to look perfect under hot stage lights.

Ah, you mean Synthetic Electronic Assassination Neohuman Positronic Robotic Individual Calibrated for Exploration, then!

(oh boy, I can just see the missives that will appear in Paul's inbox tomorrow morning...)

Surely everybody hates guitarists? Especially other guitarists, yes?

Q: how many guitarists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: 12, one to change the lightbulb, and 11 to shrug and complain "Hey, I could have done that!"

back in 89 i had a conversation with a GUITAR HERO where i was slagging off Malmsteen, McAlpine, Satriani and Vai - he said "in ten years they'll have mellowed out and will be produced great melodic commercial songs"

i knew time would prove him wrong. i bought Malmsteen's 'Trilogy' and from the first listen - it did nothing for me - despite what all the guitar mags said.

johnny marr was right.

May I suggest that the reason "guitar-wank" is less tolerable than any form of "danceable wank" is that... you can't dance to it.....