musicianship: c / d?

(Answer: No.)

(theory can be good at times, but is only one option and not ever requirement for good music).

I do not consider these to be the definition of musicianship. Skill and theory are secondary, but I know that knowledge does help creativity somewhat.

"Musicianship" is knowing how to work with other musicians so that the performance is tight, everybody involved working as one...and every part, no matter how hard or how simple, is executed with the precision of a professional.

Copyright © 2003 Index Magazine and Index Worldwide. All rights reserved. Site design: Cyber Diva Media Site development: Jeremy Campbell

I'm saying this sort of in a faux-naive way, lacking cultural context I suppose. It just seems odd that one's taste can evolve to tolerate or appreciate more and more chaos or imperfection in music and even to seek that quality. Is it just accepted that we should be pleased only by the purely harmonious or flawless, etc etc.

You tend to notice things that aren't perfect. When something stands out, you either love it or hate it.

Ideally, a knowledge of theory and proficiency on an instrument are *symptoms* of good musicianship, because they are evidence someone has taken the time to learn about what they are doing, probably in the hopes of being able to do it better. However, just because someone can play all their scales faster than anyone else does not mean they are suddenly a "good" "musician". Likewise, you don't have to know theory to be a good musician - though invariably, every musician has a way of talking about music-craft to other musicians (one job of theory is assist in this).

Maybe the question should be "virtuosity: c/d", but I don't see how musicianship is arguable.

BORING.

Actually, I just want to like what I like and not have to try to pin down these issues of technique and creativity and so forth. (Partly I quote the Galas interview as a lame appeal to authority. Partly I quote it because it's refreshing to hear someone with some underground street credibility expressing views to which I'm basically sympathetic. Also, I like her emphasis on virutosity not being for virtuosity's sake--even though I wouldn't used the word "story.")

What I think is that most people who don't have much technical knowledge of music run out of steam in their careers more quickly than those who do. It's possible to compensate in certain ways, and it's possible to hit on unexpected ways of doing things, but somehow I don't see many mostly untrained artists who can sustain that for a long period of time.

I think knowledge is much less of a hinderance to creativity than what appears to be assumed in the original question. Sun Ra's way of handling all of this is particularly interesting. He would build a solid foundation, through ridiculously long hours of rehearsal, but then he would pull that away by changing the arrangements at the last minute. Or he would take his musicians, some* of whom were obviously pretty well-trained and virtuosic, and try to get them back to the point of beginners mind. (For me, the most interesting parts of the Sun Ra biography were the ones that dealt with these issues.) It probably needs to be addressed paradoxically.

*I realize that he also sometimes "took in" musicians who were considered sub-par by senior Arkestra members, as well as outside observers.

I'd never thought about that before. I guess you're right.

This explains why most of my favourite bands only ever put out about two or three albums.

It does NOT, however, explain The Cure.

Felcher, true. What I used to find though was that a lot of the learn-as-you-go bands got less interesting after their initial burst of sloppy creativity (usually about three albums, if they were a pretty good band). It's like they never really learned how to make use of the new skills they developed. Maybe this is purely a reflection of my taste. (I'm obviously making big generalizations here.)

Anyway, I was more refering to his guitar playing. He's never got much more technical for the past 20 years, but they're still going and still doing it pretty well I think. Although come to think of it, most people think they've stagnated... so never mind.

That's not for technical reasons, either. :)

*

Anyway, I just think it's a big mistake to think that extensive knowledge of music theory and technical instrumental or vocal virtuosity are bigger obstacles to creativity than not having those skills. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, though I obviously come down more in favor of the traditional musical skills. I think most of the music I like the most is made by people who have traditional technical competence, but those skills aren't enough by themselves, and blah blah blah. . . I guess it is kind of boring.

Musical skill is. Knowledge of theory isn't. Paul McCartney is the ultimate evidence that you may be highly skilled without neccessarily knowing your music theory.

Well yes, I wouldn't say the people I listen to are 'bad' musicians. You need a certain level of competence, but once you get too good the temptation to over-complicate your music becames rather vast. Joy Division were a punk band, remember? Ned will agree with me that Unknown Pleasures is one of the most brilliant albums of all time, and yet it's so incredibly simple. That's the kind of music I have wet dreams about.

But hey, I'm a Rothko fan, I'm artistically devoid. Don't listen to me.

Also they don't make their solos shorter than they have to be.

I like what Diamanda has to say re: virtuosity. Though I don't think it's essential it's possible to forget how powerful it can be.