The Importance of Technical Skill
 

How much do you care about musicians' instrumental skills? Do you think virtuosity makes for good music, or that it hurts songwriting?

(this topic might need to be articulated better)

Much akin to minimalism, if done with the intent of creating some powerful, it very well might be a good thing.

Jazz, for example, can feature insanely proficient musicians. John Coltrane is near John Petrucci in terms of 'Hey why not just solo right here right now?'. But Coltrane's playing is a spiritual experience; the way he plays saxophone is very pronounced and upfront, and he completely steals the show for every note he plays. Even in his most "Why is he soloing for no reason?" moments, he manages to provide you with some sort of intrigue.

Genres that require extreme skill; like good math rock, usually have a blend of catchy songwriting and complexity. Though, some metal I've heard gives up good songwriting for "LOL BR00TAL SOLOZ" just to be louder and faster than thou. Al you need is a good balance, and a great band can come out of it.

I imagine it this way:

Technical songwriting is not necessarily vital. However, when used right, it can make songs significantly more interesting. Creativity is what makes good songs, that and flavor.

If this were painting, creativity and flavor are the color and intensity of the paints.

However, Technical Skill is the canvas. The more skill you, and the musicians around you, have the more you can conceivably do in order to make a broader more powerful picture. Doesn't mean your picture will be pretty, though.

Sometimes technical bands can be the most boring thing if they just repeat mundane formulas in order to keep "focus", and/or accessibility(From what I've heard, Dreamtheater, imo. No offense.). On the other side of the coin, some of the less technically skilled bands are able to experiment and find solutions of creating sound(I honestly think the Beatles are a prime example of this. Not that they weren't skilled but not really virtuosos yet revolutionary when it came to studio production.).

Then again the absolute best bands for me are the ones that have amazing technical skill but also utilize it to paint vast colorful landscapes(my favorite band, Magma).

As for it hurting songwriting... I don't really like the modern concept of songwriting. Just feels like a thinly veiled term for high accessibility which feels often like a thinly veiled term for mass appeal. Which, as somebody who sees music as an art form not a commodity, means absolutely nothing to me.

You should checkout Voivod and change your mind ;)

I didn't say all metal :rolleyes:

but yeah, what album should I start out with? I want to further my my metal knowledge.

Obviously Voivod and start early with the Dimension Hatross album:

This is 1987 and no one knew how to take this approach from this band but there is so much going on:

You will either love this or hate it. I Think they are frigging awesome myself:


Who said that Metal was predictable?

Nope! As long as I feel a response from the music, then I'm fine.

To me, the songwriting aspect is far more important than the technical aspect. To quote a phrase, "The most important part of music is what isn't in the notes." Don't get me wrong, I love hearing talented musicians just as well, too, but if their songwriting doesn't do much for me, then I'm not going to be a fan of the band.

My best example for this is probably Rush, and oh dear God, I am jumping into the fireplace talking about Rush, I'm sure. Can I respect their instrumental virtuosity? Sure. But they just don't seem to flesh the actual meat of their songs out enough for me, instead preferring to cover up the lack of song with flashy instrumental pyrotechnics, so on the whole, I'm not a Rush fan, though I do enjoy some of their material from time to time. Rush fans, please do not tear my face off :D

You are so right. Rush's songs just aren't good.

I think some people known for how technically talented they are, can't write good songs. The most skilled singers usually make bad music. Celine Dion comes to mind. The most technically skilled guitarists often make bad music too. Here's a band Michael Angelo Batio (considered one of the best shredders ever) was in called Nitro:



LOL

Dude, Neil Pert wrote about fu‎cking trees, man, dude. Fu‎cking trees.

Whooooooaaaaa...

Dude, you're right. I hadn't even thought of that. I can't believe I've been such a blind fool for so long! I take back everything I said!

But seriously, I feel very much the same about Rush. There's a few albums I enjoy but there's a lot of their stuff I just can't get behind. I should've gotten tickets to their shows around here because I bet it would be awesome to see them live.

I had a friend who loved Rush. Played bass, and he actually had a bass Geddy Lee used on the road, apparently. Was pretty cool.

Ever since Andy Warhol made "ideas without skill" fashionable back in the 60s, it seems to me that popular culture has been playing a game of "skill limbo". How low can we go? How badly drawn can a cartoon be and still be considered a cartoon? How many drum machines and sequencers can we stack up to avoid having to learn a real instrument? How much plastic surgery does it take to make acting skills unnecessary? I really don't know the answers to those questions. Every day is a new horror.

I think Moving Pictures and Signals are pretty cool albums, but other than those and a scattered assortment of random songs, I don't like most of their material. Still, seeing them live would be pretty cool, if only because of how awesome they are at their instruments.

Also, despite my misgivings towards Rush, owning a bass that Geddy Lee used to use would be sweet. I'm not gonna deny that.

I think it's a silly question. The best artists can manage a balance of both skill and creativity with ease and excellence.

I don't think it's that silly a question. Personally, I like a lot of music that exhibits attitude and catchy songwriting but little technical skill (so I think this is awesome). Also, some people don't care about good songwriting and creativity and end up listening to bull**** like Buckethead.

That's a pretty good description of Coltrane's style. The way I see it, he simply has a lot to say (so to speak) and nothing to prove, whereas Petrucci still seems to be on his endless shredquest to bore everyone to death. Bit of a pity since I actually like some of his riffs on Train of Thought.

i just think it's about not interrupting what music is asking of its medium. it doesn't take any skill to hit a gong standing 5 feet in diameter. but when you hit it, it reaches every single body in its projection area and speaks to them. if you interrupt its decay though, it's almost like you absorb its intent and then assume responsibility for its proper redistribution.

Andy Warhol was actually very technically skilled and in fact worked as a commercial illustrator before becoming famous as a fine artist. His fine art also involved a high level of technical skill. His Brillo boxes, for example, were not commercially produced boxes that he had bought at the store, they were perfect reproductions created from scratch by him. If you don't think that takes a high level of technical ability, then you don't know much about the craft of creating visual art.

Hm. I mean, I lean towards songwriting ability myself, but I'm not terribly interested in something that requires no skill whatsoever. I suppose everyone's idea of "balance" will be different for everyone, so it's still an applicable opinion.

I'm not exactly into jazz, but virtuosity seems more of a good thing in jazz than it is in rock. Since jazz doesn't have much inherent force or power in its music compared to rock, dazzling skill seems like a good way to improve the effect the music has. Whereas in metal it's just showing off and weighs the music down.

http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-cont...7/facepalm.jpg

so many things wrong here.

A journalist once said about the Cows that they definitely knew how to play their insturments, they just refused to tune them. This applies to almost all of my favorite music.....

Okay, if I'm wrong then show me jazz that's exciting, and complex progressive metal that doesn't show off to the point of getting dull.

Here's some exciting Jazz for you. John Coltrane ~ "Chasin' The Trane"

The first part was sort of exciting 7:49-7:53. The second part was sort of exciting 2:43-2:46 and 3:50-3:55 and moments that sounded like those ones. I guess his improvisation is impressive and this song is more exciting than anything on Kind of Blue, which is the only jazz record I've listened to. Well not so much listened to as heard as background music, since I didn't find anything about it striking or memorable. After listening to "Chasin' the Trane," I can remember 2:43-2:46 and 3:50-3:55 from part 2 clearly in my mind, but that's it. For me, an exciting song is captivating for most of that song, and also organized, because then I can get into the feel of the song more easily. Basically I like songs to have some pop appeal. But I understand how the improvisation and unpredictability found in a lot of jazz makes it exciting for some people.

you can't have one without the other.

just like you need to learn the rules before you can break the rules - you need to learn technical chops before you can forget them.

anyone who tries to tell you different has either never actually picked up an instrument or sounds like a combination of every single sample they've ever managed to get their hands on and absolutely nothing of their own voice.


as for the current 'find me jazz that's exciting, and metal that isn't boring' crap, stop whining about being covered in crap if you refuse to stop crawling. they aren't styles meant to be spoonfed to passive listeners. either you step up and find what strikes your soul or you get the hell out of the way.

the best part is, fritter's the guy that told me that I listen to too much bizarre hipster crap.

If you've only ever listened to one jazz album in your life how can you possibly make sweeping statements about the entire, broad, generations-spanning genre?

To me it doesn't really matter because I don't listen to a lot of hard rock or metal.

Although I do listen to quite a bit of techno (Mostly remixes/mashups) so there is times when it really matters.

I don't mind it but it always bores me. Since I've heard jazz songs outside that album and they always bore me, why wouldn't I assume the entire genre would bore me? I know enough about jazz in general to make that sweeping assumption. I was in school band playing percussion in MS and HS, and I went to a few Jazz Band practices in 9th grade then realized it was all boring me so much I didn't want to be a part of it.

I didn't ask to find me "metal that isn't boring." I wasn't talking about metal in general, I was talking about progressive metal with lots of technicality and complex instrumentation. One of my friends shows me enough of it for me to have an informed opinion about it. It's really annoying you're assuming I'm a passive listener just because I expect music to get my attention without me forcing it to.

There's no contradiction caused by what I've said here and how I said you listened to too much bizarre hipster crap. Maybe I should have said "weird hipster stuff." Is that better?

Just all of the things you say make you sound more ignorant by the second.

Because, git, when you're hearing 14-year-olds playing jazz music it doesn't represent fu‎cking Coltrane, Davis or Kirk. And if you think it does, kindly keep your braindead opinions out of your posts. Of course, there's also the matter of age - if the last time you actually listened to jazz was 9th grade and you're now 24-years-old, you're just being a stubborn a‎sshole. You might know some names but you don't know the music.

What you consider an informed opinion would probably be considered very little knowledge by many people. When your only contact with a genre is 10th grade jazz band or a friend showing you songs they like, you don't have an "informed opinion". Until you go out and actively fu‎cking participate, you know sh‎it about music. Go find some jazz or some prog metal and give it a listen, if you like it find more of it, read about it. Soak up information. Don't rely on outside sources for your musical opinions because then you're not bloody better than someone who listens to everything except rap and country.

Anybody who actually is so absorbed by the made-up media-fueled "Pitchfork Age" that they see 'bizarre hipster crap' as a valid musical insult seriously needs to rethink their approach to music, as it comes off terribly arrogant and misinformed. Anytime I see the words "pretentious" or "hipster garbage" in a review or statement of some kind, I immediately stop reading it 90% of the time.

Also, jazz standards that you're forced to play in school bands will ruin the genre for you unless you make it your goal to experience more of the genre; Upon playing standards from boring modern "I want money so here's a 12-bar-blues jazz piece" composers, I finally gave the real genre a try.

Aw you beat me =(

Because it's a massively diverse genre that's been around for nearly a century.

A couple 9th grade jazz band practices isn't any kind of meaningful exposure to jazz.

What you're saying here is basically like saying you've heard one Beatles album and covered a couple Elton John songs in a high school marching band so you're well informed in your opinion that rock music is boring.

Okay, you win, I'll stop saying ignorant things.

From here on out it would be nice if posts went back to being on the topic of the discussion.

You mean you can't defend your ignorant opinions that have no foundation so you pull the ol' sarcastic "You win!"? Excellent! But indeed, back to the topic.

Poor fritter...you got totally raped here. This is why it's not good to generalize things you don't know much about. :)

As for whether or not technicality is really important to music...I suppose it depends on what you want to do in music. There are musicians out there who have been playing 40+ years or more and still can't produce a whole lot of interesting or memorable music, while there are people who start off from nothing who manage to do some rather interesting stuff. It can work both ways!

To put it another way, technical skill can give you the means to innovate a genre or make some rather ear-catching ideas a reality, especially if have experience in actually writing songs. On the other hand, many skilled and unskilled musicians alike are content to stick to their pleasant and well-tread singer/songwriter fare and leave it at that, and listeners don't seem to care either way.

Hence, whether or not technicality is important depends entirely on the music itself, and needs to be treated on a case-by-case kind of basis. You wouldn't want to try covering something like Yes's Siberian Khatru when the only song you know how to play on guitar is Smoke on the Water right?

A song with thirty time changes and twenty minutes to burn can be just as interesting and meaningful as your favorite Smiths song, and that's the simple truth of the matter.

Quoted for truth. I couldn't have said it better myself.