Skill vs. Talent

Jim Prog Wizard makes a very good and important (but sadly "lost in the sauce") point about Robert Fripp.  Although we all know Fripp for some of his absurdly fast, multi-note stuff (like Fracture et al), he is one of the few guitarists who understands the value of "simplicity," sometimes playing just one note and sustaining it over multiple measures, or using only a couple of notes (think of his solo in Heroes - the most haunting and brilliant two-note solo ever).  Fripp obviously has the "skill" of a virtuoso guitarist, and can play as fast and clean as anyone.  But few of those others have the "talent" to know when to "lay back" and "say more with less."  That - knowing when to be virtuosic and when to say more with less - is, to me, one of the marks of a truly talented, skilled musician.  (The only other guitarist I can think of who is as good at this as Fripp is Zappa - no surprise there...)

If we dissect the solos of Emerson, Wakeman and Banks, there is almost no question that Banks' solos are the most consistently "melodic."  It may be that Bank's inability to engage in the kind of keyboard "pyrotechnics" that Emerson and Wakeman are capable of is, in fact, a blessing in this regard.  True, it may also be the music itself that "calls" for melodic rather than "flamboyant" soloing.  And certainly both Emerson and Wakeman are capable of very melodic stuff.  But it has always been one of Bank's most impressive "features" that he is so consistently melodic.

The question of whether "skill" (especially to a higher, if not exceptional, degree) is required in writing and performing prog can be answered by considering what "prog" is, by definition - or, at least, elements that most people agree are included.  One of those elements is a "classical" aspect, perhaps even an "orchestral" approach (i.e., contrapuntal lines, rhythms, etc.)  In order for this element to be included - for the music to be "prog" in this regard - one must have a certain degree of skill.  It is not enough to be able to play a 12-bar blues - even as proficiently and creatively as Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page.  Something "more" is required in the "skill" department.

Ultimately, however, all music hinges on melody.  Without it, all the skill in the world will not lead to a satisfactory composition - if by "satisfactory" we are talking about something that "moves" one in a conscious or subconscious emotional way.  Sure, one could write prog without it.  But it would be "journeyman" music: full of technical proficiency, but completely lacking in "soul."  As an aside, I had this discussion with Les Paul quite a number of times.  And if there is anyone who knows about melody, it is Les, who has more hit songs, Gold records and Grammys than fit in a large room.  Les always said this even about himself: that for all his technical proficiency (and, at one time, no one could touch him, even at their best), nothing he did would matter unless there was "the melody."  This is one of the reasons he so dislikes much of what we call "popular" music - because there is no real melody.  Sure, there are notes, and the notes move.  But there are usually very few notes, and they don't move very far in either direction, or make particularly big leaps.  In showing what "melody" is, Les likes to point to "Somewhere Over the Rainbow."  You may hate that song.  But I invite you to disengage your judgment for a moment, sit back and really listen to the melody.  It starts with a jump of an octave, and moves up and down, and all around, without losing you.  And consider that most of you could probably sing it (i.e., you all remember the melody) - despite how comparatively "complex" the melody is compared to most of what we listen to.  How many truly "memorable" melodies can you think of in rock, in any genre?  (Indeed, that is why The Beatles are considered as great as they are.)

So, skill or talent?  The answer, if we are talking about prog, is both.  Skill enough to make the music "prog" within the definition that includes a more "complex" structure than standard rock (and especially a more "classical" or "orchestral" structure), and talent enough to write music (i.e., melodies, arrangements, etc.) that makes people feel, or think, or react in some positive way.

Peace.

Gooooooooooooood Topic!!

I also thought there was a fine line between talent and ability.  Ability is just a means to expand your talent.  Talent: the beutiful music you create or your ability (in that sense) to achieve so (music).  However you do not need skill/ability to accomplish "music".  It's all in your head anyway?  So wait, is there a such thing as skill?   Statistical things like speed and technique, don't you decide what those are and define them for yourself. 

I think they are both important and the combunation of these improtant features has given us players such as the "three H's" (Howe, Hillage, and Hackett), Robert Fripp, Steve Vai and many others.  They combination of these atributes are some of THE KEY FEATURES that end up defining something "progressive".

Threefates wrote:

I think I've listened that song about a million times and I still hear something totally different about it every time.  I think you hear what you want when it comes to ELP.  I think you look at them the same way non-proggers look at prog...

In first place I like ELP's music, but I don't believe they are the gods of Progressive rock, not being a hardcore fan of them givs me enough distance to appreciate their high and low points. I've been blamed of different things (Some true some not) but I'm never been blamed of not being a progger.

I don't find anything new in the track, I fing a good start and an excellent ending but a repetitive middle part that could have lasted 50% oof the time and be much better.

Actually I heard this done live a million times and never played the same way twice.. so I have no idea what you're even referring to here... I heard this done a few months ago.. when the middle part had parts of Trilogy, Take a Pebble, Tank and The Barbarian.. all rolled into a little 7 minute solo.  Excellent actually!

In first place I'm talking about Fanfare for a Common Man in Works, normal mortals as most of us don't have the chance to see ELP every month. In second place, if you add three or four tracks in the middle of a song, it's no more the original song, it's a medley created for a concert.

All the time I've been talking about composition not about performing skills, because we all know ELP does great concerts.

Not true... there are boring parts... I'm always hoping it will get to I Get Up, I Get Down quicker....

Who says that? It's your personal opinion, and it's not more valid than any other person's, I find the song perfect even when everybody knows I'm not a hardcore Yes fan.

(Actually their project never failed, they just gave up on it after Works 1 - Works 2 and Love Beach was just for the record companies.)

You say tomato I say tomate, but the point is they never reached again the peak of Trilogy or BSS after 5 albums, you may say they gave up, I believe it failed for lack of versatility because no artist wants to do an inferior album even when it's only to honour a contract, but the truth it that after those great albums ELP never released another masterpiece.

(Works 2 is actually a bunch of songs that didn't make it on other albums... each song is so completely different from the next that calling it predictable is about as believeable as the rest of your arguement)

Please Threefates, Works II is full of typicall Lake ballads, this is predictable IMO.

But not 99.9% of ELP fans.... Love Beach has "An Officer and a Gentleman" which takes up the entire side 2... thats a beautiful piece of music!

Of course not for ELP fans, but for the rest of the prog world and at least 1% of ELP fans Love Beach is a terrible album often used as a an example of a bad album.

That's the problem with fans, if you go to the Genesis forum you'll find people that thinks Who Dunnit? or Ilegal Alien are wonderful songs and that Invissible Touch is a masterpiece, even when most of us believe it's crap.

According to those who heard Ian Anderson singing in concert here in Montreal in Oct. and on German tv last month... his voice is shot as well... so I guess you should keep up also.

Of course age reaches us all, maybe his voice is dead but not the music even if that is true, it took  Jethro Tull 40 years to go down, but it took ELP only 5 albums (Well it took Genesis only 7 studio albums).

Iván

A solo's just a solo, but a good cigar is a...

no wait...

 a solo's just a solo but a complete song is that rare thing - something that can alter your whole mood.

Most of the proficient musos on the forum will know that feeling of soloing by muscle-memory, using speed and a blur of meaningless notes to cover what is essentially a lack of interest or inspiration.

I'll subscribe to the Tony Banks composition within a composition school of thought, although personally I always like to hear players work within a loose framework and them extrapolate from there. Most of my favourite guitar, keyboard, whatever players do this - they seem to have a basic structure for the solo and then use the framework to hang some improvisation around.

I think if you listen to a lot of Yes, Floyd and Genesis this is the way most of their lead players worked, at least it seems to me that most of Steve Howe's work has a lot of structure and very definitely avoids the 'gimme 24 bars and let me go' school of noodling.

That though is soloing, as for technical proficiency v talent, I'll take the talent each and every day. Often I find that technical know-how gets in the way of compsotion. The more i know the less inclined i become to break the rules, the more I fall back on familiar forms. I imagine it's the same for real musicians

I have heard some amazingly technically proficient musicians over the years but by and large the urge to dazzle with meteor-shower legato gets the better of them every time and often seems to compromise their songwriting to the point of writing to fit the solo rather than the other way round - the more shred-oriented guitar players are particularly guilty of this. I honestly prefer a less is more approach, even in a more is ALWAYS more arena like prog. Indeed, gratuitous soloing just bores me these days. It's all seems a bit juvenile and smack's of a 'mine's bigger than yours' syndrome.

Talent every time.

Indeed.  There is more resonance, character and depth in ONE BAR of Roy Harper's de-tuned 12-string compositions, than the entirety of Vai's back catalogue. 

I must say, that I'm a serious PFM fan, and love all of their 1970s albums, which (in my opinion) display a perfect balance of musicality and inspiration.  Being a completist I have also acquired a considerable amount of bootleg material, taken from live shows during this period, and I find much of it is completely unlistenable. The reason? All semblance of atmosphere, pace, dynamics, and intonation, are dismissed in place of high energy, highly skilled improvisation (AKA "noodling") , that all too often makes a mockery of the very songs they are supposed of be expositions of.  Thankfully when I saw them live last year, this had been largely reversed and they reverted to the album arrangements for the most part, with newly composed sections replacing the tangent shifts of old. 

The example is there though - PFM were clearly playing below their respective abilities on record, leaving their 'showing off' for the stage (where it belongs in my opinion). I'm sure if I'd been at those shows, I would've loved every minute of it, but when I put a record on, late at night, I want to be affected in a wholly different way.  PFM have a special ability to create beautiful music - music that people without their individual talents could not create (I cant get near Mussida's stuff on the guitar) - but that high level ability is driven and controlled by inspiration and PFM's profound sense of how music can affect you. Just listen to Out Of The Roundabout - few people could get near playing that song, but there's not a single excess note. There's just no way someone without PFM's unique technical ability AND talent could have created such a masterpiece.  

^ These are excellent comments.  

I must say that speed playing has it's place but like Tony Banks himself said, 'When it comes to soloing, I try to write them like a write a song with little or no variation. They effectively become a composition within a composition'

Tony Banks is a man that can play fast but still retains that essential spark of innovation to make to listening experience worth while.   Hell, I even like his solo on 'Fading Lights'.