musicianship?

Instrumental competency has virtually nothing to do with it. Sting makes crap music competently. Fripp's best compositional days are far behind him.

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.

Brian,

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.

I agree with 99% of what J said above.

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.

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.

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.

I once saw a lady in a music store expressing her disbelief at how many CDs were filed under this mysterious "Electronic" section. It was implied that the idea of people making music with computers was quite silly and novel to her.

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.

Sting hasn't been a good bass player for a loooong time.

I suppose it really depends on what you're looking for when you're approaching the music: musicianship can certainly be important, but I don't think it's enough when that's all there is to it. I also want some sort of spark, some energy, or at the very least some sort of indication that the musician in question is glad to be playing the music in question. This is probably why I don't much care for some of the new generation of "technically competent musicians"--it sounds more like they're winging their way through a technical exercise than trying to connect with the audience somehow. A zillion notes a minute, command of all of the different scales...good for you, Mr. Guitarist, but if it was completely soulless and you have a smug look of accomplishment on your face afterwards, it's nauseating.

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.

Beside the point, but to clarify: I am not especially interested in the type of electronic/DJ music I described, but I occasionally hear something I like.

ps. I'm not one of those people who holds technical competency at the top of the list for my enjoyment of music, either. Musicianship can help certain performances, definitely, but it can also ruin others where a bit of ragged edge would better suit the emotion. Also, sometimes I just find texture a lot more interesting than musicianship. But what the hell, I sometimes enjoy listening to the random sounds of heavy machinery or traffic, etc, and enjoying the noise for aural value.

I agree with what Sean alludes to: how do you know that a person is a highly technically proficient musician if they're not playing a style of music that directly indicates this proficiency? The haughty I'm-a-musician response to this ("oh, you can just tell if you're sufficiently versed in the nuances of music") is completely N/A. It is very possible to play AND compose more rudimentarily than at the proficiency level of which one is capable (Will Oldham is the person who first springs to mind when I think of this--and this is completely based on conjecture; he has never, to my knowledge, had a Lynyrd Skynyrd moment).

So, if it's not possible to accurately discern who is and who isn't a technical master of their instrument, then it's probably a moot point to begin with.

yeah dude, bring back Paganini!


NP: Sweet - "Blockbuster" (puts it all in perspective)

brian, believe me, you're not going to get anyone behind you on the Sting issue around here :-)

Musicianship = something like the "wisdom" involved when performing music (whereas tech facility might just be a measure of one's "IQ"). I think people get these confused because sometimes it seems the only people with enough patience and maturity to obtain the first are the ones who spend years on end practicing the second. Of course, this is not a rule -- and if popular choice is any indication, is rather the exception.

I think musicianship is essence of the art of performing music. After a thousand lessons, and learning all there was to know about "how to play" my instrument, there came a time of "And Then What?" And Then What = the lifelong discovery and practice of musicianship.

OK, I know I just sounded pretty new-age there, but you know what I'm saying.

virtuosity is a bit of a red herring i think

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 ?

You probably mean  Branford Marsalis, no?
I do think competence plays a role. But what is most important is if I can connect with the musician. Not with his instrument, but with the feelings he expresses. So musicianship plays a role, but on the whole it is secondary. I'd rather listen to TV Personalities than Sting.

I think John Denver gets a bad rap. I am in fact slightly afraid to purchase any John Denver recordings because I think I would like them more than I'd like to.

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.

boy, can I be way off base or what?.... when I take time out of my life to listen to music, I (paraphrasing Fripp here)"like the playing to be f***ing good". Am I too cerebral and lacking of emotion that I would want to listen to music that could be labeled as art, with top notch musicians performing at such a high caliber? I tend not to think that, since this so-called emotionless music does bring out many emotions in me.

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?

'if it was completely soulless and you have a smug look of accomplishment on your face'...then I will LOVE it. Oh yes.

One point that always gets overlooked in this "technique vs. feel" thing (IMHO 'feel' IS 'technique' but 'technique' is not always 'feel')is that the 'derision' you cite is often to do with the artist's motives (usually only WHEN the intentions are stated or transparent, to get those accusations of bad faith on critics' part out of the way...) - i.e., players in the jazz/classical/improv/whatever field are with highly developed technique are usually given credit (here, as well as print media) for said technique - perhaps because the act of pursuing forms of music music where the 'technique'-as-advancing-genre/form implies a subordination of 'content' to 'form' thus displaying the necessary act of sacrifice on the artist's part to validate the work's being listened to and evaluated. (i.e., 'No sell out').
Whereas there's something off-putting about somebody who spent 10 years at Berklee, knows about Bartok, George Russell and Korean modes, yet plays flash 2-bar guitar solos over Savage Garden records for a living. Perhaps some find such overly mercenary attitudes (particularly if the stuff is NOT transcendent - nothing wrong with cranked-out factory music obviously)somewhat unseemly?

Sorry - the mythic Savage Garden sessioneer I refer to is not disparaged for 'making a living' as I insinuated but 'making a vastly more comfortable living than is warranted by his contribution to music relative to the contribution he COULD make if he was willing to settle for an ADEQUATE living as opposed to an EXTRAVAGANT one'

brian i think you're right that eg sting (ten summoner's tale-era sting) is basically not popular here: so you must stay and talk about what you like more, and graciously ignore the hataz... it is very easy to get into the unthinking groove of hating, and to use [x] as an icon of what you dislike, and good when someone comes along and shakes that up

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?

when they establish Punk School , will Frank Kogan and I get invited to lecture?

dave q - OTM.

I'll be the janitor.

You've got to take each record on its merits. I was listening to 'Out to Lunch' by Eric Dolphy yesterday and its remarkable how the musical virtuosity of the individual musicians is integrated in the group, that's quite an album.

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.

it's just that their music appeals to the mind rather than the body

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.

What does "in the pocket" mean? I've heard the phrase before but have never understood it.

It's just that their music appeals to the mind rather than aiming for the body.

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.

BTW, woke up shocked to find that I agreed with George!

"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 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 disagree entirely. Someone like Sting isn't aiming for your mind, he's aiming for your wallet."

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.

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.

Yeah, you're right. I shouldn't post first thing in the morning.

I didn't intend this to be a thread defending Sting in particular or any other musicians who are derided for being highly successful throughout the world and are mainly considered to be elite artists in the realm of music today, but yet, being the idiot that I have always found myself to be, I take the bait...

"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.

Well, first of all, I've already retracted that statement as a rather thoughtless comment on my part, and your comments in regard to its validity are fair enough. However, I'm almost tempted to say something equally thoughtless now, as your last sentence indicates that you're not really interested in hearing opinions relating to the question you asked.

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?"

J,

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.

at punk school being the janitor is surely more punky than being a lecturer, dr c!!

For some reason Royal Trux seems like a good band to bring up here. Because RT plays in a blues idiom, even if you've never heard their songs before you instinctively feel the "right" way they "ought" to be played, but it never quite matches up with the rhythmic and melodic idosyncrasies they bring to bear... the correct thing is like a ghost car puttering along beside you, racing the track at the most optimum angle, taking all the curves at exactly the right speed... but you're in the REAL car, which is swerving crazily... the difference between the two is what makes Royal Trux good.

Bri for the record I for one didn't say anything about Sting's ego. I said he's not a good bassist any more. There's no attitude there any more, no spiky energy. Sure, he might be as technically competent (you would have to make the case though) but he's not a session player, he's Sting. We expect more from him than competence. Or at least some of us did, once.

And the janitor would pass up prog and dance records to the kids "This is the real thing!"

Hmmm... I think this whole debate is a bit moot when an obviously cerebral musician like David Bowie thinks this version of his "Space Oddity" is "a piece of art that I couldn't have conceived of, even with half of Colombia's finest export products in me"!!!

― Old Fart!!!, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

(..End Tag)

Janitor at Punk School? Isn't that dangerously close to being Noodles from The Offspring?

Someone played me some Yngwie Malmsteen once. I was appalled.

As a Brit who generally seems to like a lot of unskilful music, I feel I have to point out that if you're as unmusical as me you simply CAN'T TELL when someone is a 'good' or 'bad' instrumentalist, so my preferences might well be purely accidental. I think they're not, though - the pop discourse I grew up on had a big influence on me in two ways. First off was people telling me the music I liked was crap because it was unmusical and too easy (eg. synthpop, programmed music, pop) - so to counter this there was a second strain of thinking picked up from the NME whereby musicianship was somehow suspicious or laughable outside certain carefully constrained non- rock contexts.

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.