Artistic Ability or Technical Ability ? Music Discussion

[Hawk]

Artistic Ability or Technical Ability ?

I don't know of too many who are blessed with equal amounts of each. Although it is subjective.

Our keys player and myself were discussing professional drummer Jeff Hamilton. I said every note he plays seems perfectly thought out and perfectly placed, yet looks and sounds totally unrehearsed.

Yet I've heard drummers say, "I can do that" , as though they missed his artistry. Does that make sence to you ?

Naturally the ideal would be to have the most incredible technical ability yet use it sparingly in the most artistic way. Not to embarrass them, but local drummers like Rob Bonsel or Randy Servello come to mind as drummers who can do this. It's not about over playing or underplaying. But about being an artist.

This thread is also relevant as to how one learns their instrument. Self taught or a firm background in scales, theory and rudiments. And one's influences.

Any thoughts ?

[Banned]

Two of my favorite guitarists are John McLaughlin and Ullie Jon Roth. They have the ability to put together incredible technique with incredible feeling. Its probably what makes them some of the greatest guitar players alive today.

[lonewolf]

A very subjective subject, Bill.

There are amazing guitarists out there who can arpeggiate like a sequencer, but have difficulty in creating an artistic passage.

At the other end of the spectrum, you may find some very artistic self taught guitarists who sound great, but may be limited without the benefit of solid picking techniques.

When taught properly, technical excellence includes insight into artistic license. Ed McGuire's guitar teaching method comes to mind. Dexterity studies combined with solo composition allows you to hear what may sound good and what may not, and still execute 32nd note triplets.

Like all things in life, balance is the key.

Then there's Neil Young playing a solo. Haven't figured that one out yet.

[bassist_25]

A very subjective subject, Bill.

There are amazing guitarists out there who can arpeggiate like a sequencer, but have difficulty in creating an artistic passage.

At the other end of the spectrum, you may find some very artistic self taught guitarists who sound great, but may be limited without the benefit of solid picking techniques.

When taught properly, technical excellence includes insight into artistic license. Ed McGuire's guitar teaching method comes to mind. Dexterity studies combined with solo composition allows you to hear what may sound good and what may not, and still execute 32nd note triplets.

Like all things in life, balance is the key.

Then there's Neil Young playing a solo. Haven't figured that one out yet.

I think that's a great framing for a response, especially the Neil Young point.

A certain threshold of technical ability is needed in order to actualize the music or whatever art you're trying to put forth. Without getting into a long-winded, pretentious, intellectual wank session waxing literary analysis and philosophy of art, to me, it's always come down to using the right amount of ability to convey a certain piece of music. I never got the whole thing about it being cool to not know how to play your instrument that happened in the '90s, even though I like a lot of the artists that came out during that time period. It kind of goes back to what I said in the Henry Kaiser thread I made a while back: Hiding behind the pretense of art is not an excuse for a lack of talent.

There is a fine line...or perhaps it's not really that fine. I think Joe Satriani and Steve Vai are amazing guitar players. To me, they're on a whole other planet in regard to technical ability, rock composition, and emotion. However, the Great Kat is also a very technical player, but her guitar playing just leaves me flat and bored. Phrasing just doesn't seem to be any part of her musical vocabulary. Malmsteen always gets brought up in these discussion. He's no doubt a bad ass player. I've owned Fire and Ice for the better part of 10 years. I never really listened to it the whole way through, so I popped it in the player a couple summers ago. A lot of the tunes on that disc are just horrible in terms of song writing.

A lot of people equate technical playing or virtuosity with wank. For me, it's always been about having something important to say. I'd rather hear 8 bars of a highly technical, but also very musical, guitar solo than sit through a 20 minute pentatonic borefest that goes no where.

[Killjingle]

I say write a good song and the rest takes care of itself; no matter how difficult or simplistic. A guy that come to my mind... Eddie Van Halen. Some of his easiest songs to play are their greatest....

[Colton]

You're all diving way too deep into this. Unfortunately, some people either think you're the greatest theory master in the world, or you're not shit, and there's people who think if you spend too much time with theory, you're not playing from your heart enough, and you're not shit.

It either strikes a chord with you or it doesn't, it's all the same, but different.



EDIT: Fuck, now I'm thinking. I'm sure you can see the smoke from where you're at.

Let's talk about a few of my favorites. Tool, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, Stevie Ray, Satch... yeah that's enough...

Tool: Math metal. Not metal. Whatever. Not the greatest 'music' theory in the world, but fantastic changes and rythm changes. It took pnEumatic a week to learn The Grudge. Crazy.

Pink Floyd: Great music theory, followed by shit that could only be written by being 'made up'. Psychedelic stuff... Off the wall sometimes.

Nirvana: (gonna get my ass kicked here, but..) Only knew a few chords, screamed. Did things that haven't been done, didn't care, tore up, gave 0 fucks. RIP Kurdt.*

SRV: Started young, knew theory, cared about it? Not when youre smashed off your ass. YOU try starting a day with a shotglass full of crown and coke. No, not soda. Fucking legend. Dropped out of school cause he could make enough money playing. Screw skewl right?

Satch: Knows more notes than anyone should ever note. Probably all of them. Can balance a good progession at times with the fact he has to put 100000 notes per second into it sometimes. Sometimes the songs have no feel, somtimes they blow your mind..




After all of that, I can't say that one of them is better than another. Quit thinkin about it. Besides, there's more factors than this, like fire.













But Nickelback sucks balls.


*not misspelled.

[Naga]

I can't play worth a shit. That being said, I often feel that at times, there are things that I want to convey, but can't. It's like I'm caught and stuck on something. Music hiatus does that sometimes. I digress

Music is such a personal equity. You can't tell Cobain that he didn't know what he was doing. Those 3 chords may not be any challenge to any guitar player, but nobody put them in the way with the feel that he did. That's how music is... You interpret it one way, and you put it out your way. Even with cover songs and cover bands, they may not play the cover exactly the same. Their tones, and sometimes their off-beating, create a little touch of their own on an otherwise already-created song. To the music world, Nirvana may have been a joke. But to those who forgot about the theory behind it, Cobain's playing threw those 3 chords at you in ways you didn't realize!

This is what gives artistry its own beauty. It's an art. We're all using the same mediums. We're just throwing them on the canvas in different ways. What does it matter if you use 32509237532987 different colors, or the standard shades of red, yellow, blue? There are plenty of strictly black and white pictures out there that many people still regard as amazing art. Sum it up to personal interpretation and call it a day

Of course, on the other side, I can agree... There's a difference between technical strength and, agreeing with the term Paul used, "wank". I have gotten bored of hearing some guitarists play. After a short bit, you wonder, "Where is this going?" unless the artist captures your mind. Just because you use almost every color you can think of on the canvas doesn't mean it's considerably beautiful art. But again, that's interpretation

All in all, how you take in what the artist is putting out is really going to tell you whether it's art, or just a waste of paint and canvas. Just because someone knows 5 chords doesn't mean they're not talented, and just because someone can play 500 notes per second and drill all over the frets doesn't make their music worth hearing

[lonewolf]

Correct me if I am wrong, Bill, buit I don't think you meant this thread to be about songwriting, did you?

I read this more like you're talking about playing an instrument.

[P MAC]

Bill' I think it is like comparing apples to oranges. Musical ability, to me, is a gift that can be nurtured and developed, but in it's essence cannot be taught. Technical skill and theory, on the other hand, are more readily accessible and less a product af nature and more a product of hard work and dedication.

Regardless of how talented a musician is, some degree of technical proficiency and understanding of theory are necessary tools for communicating the artistry to the world.

My ears, eyes, and my heart always lead me to art in any form that is earthy, familiar, and unpretentious.

A quote that I have always held on to from an unknown source is:
"Play the song; not the instrument"

I also had the privilege of knowing Ed McGuire, although I was not a student of his as several of our fellow RP members were. I did have a few lessons with Ed though. As a very young bass player, during one of my times with Ed, I asked him "How do you know when to play a fill on the bass?", and his response has shaped and guided my playing to this day. Ed said; " Son, wait 'till you can't stand it anymore, then wait two more bars and you should be about right!"

Bottom line, no pun intended; as in all things in life: seek balamce and harmony!

[tornandfrayed]

So, what is the difference between say... Jack White and.... John Petrucci...

I gotta say that John is a great player, i doubt that anyone would debate that but... When it comes down to it Jack White's projects are fun, dirty and very unique..

So is the vocal styling of Trent Reznor less technically perfect then say any of the three Tenors? Yes is less technically perfect but does that make it any less pertinent or valid as an art?

Art in all forms is purely subjective, it is so hard to define what it valid from any perspective then your own.

Sp I say SRV is great with the whole package. I say EVH was another one who HAD the whole package...

Check out the new Dead Weather...

[banderson]

As a drummer I know some basic theory like counting quarter notes, eighths, triplets ect ect. Figuring time signatures can be a little tricky.

But I think the best thing to do is "cheat". Basically steal as much as you can from the pro that has the technical ability and creative ability by listening ALOT! Sometimes you might not be able to speak the technical language....But IMO that doesnt mean you cant be a great musician.

I wonder if Keith Moon ever Pete Townsend he was gonna play a 7/4 after the g chord in the 3rd verse...blah blah blah. I doubt it. Of course knowing song structure is pretty vital for any musician!