Skill vs. Talent

A question most pertinent to prog I suspect.

Many of us recognise and appreciate a well executed solo or complex instrumental but is the ability to play like Robert Fripp or Keith Emerson an added bonus or an absolute necessity for prog to exist?

There are those who might say that technique is everything but would the Pink Floyd be any better with 300mph, widdily, widdily solo's every five minutes? Would Tangerine Dream benefit from the addition of Tony Banks?

There is no doubt that a song as to live at the heart of any prog epic (often several) but do we listen for the song or the 9/8 section at the end? Maybe there is a middle ground to this argument but deep; down does the engine exist to drive the car or does the car exist to house the engine?

oliverstoned wrote: It's the problem between inspiration and virtuosity. Eventually, i think the most important is inspiration. Cause the most important thing is the emotion. But when both are gathered... It's the top! ...like in the best PF, for example...

I think that's how I feel too Oliverstoned but playing the devils advocate here, could you write a prog song on inspiration alone?

It might work for punk but prog? I'm not so sure.

BTW, this thread was inspired by Reed's thread on bands with the best musicians.

Blacksword wrote: Hawkwind are another good example of how a band can actually be comprised of pretty bad musicians - stoned or otherwise - but if they have a good idea, its still a good idea, played well or otherwise.

How could I have forgotten the mighty Hawkwind??? Oh the shame of it!  

I think it's definitely possible to write using inspiration as the main part - but it is next to impossible to use inspiration alone.

Scenario 1: You pick up an instrument for the first time and try to play it, having never heard music before.

Without any kind of instruction regarding technique of either handling the instrument or understanding of musical form, you are unlikely in the extreme to produce anything artistic. In the same manner as the fabled chimpanzees with typewriters, and as proven by radical composers such as John Cage, it is possible, however, that you might create a great work of art, if you already have the latent talent somehow, or there is a very happy accident.

Scenario 2: You have played basic guitar music, say, blues, for a year or two, and heard some other musicians - maybe including far-out, avant-garde composers - and even made yourself familiar with some of their non-standard, more creative compositional methods, such as utilising unusual techniques to get sounds from your instrument without having to stretch yourself in the realm of conventional music. You have a keen artistic imagination that sees only possibilities, and a penchant for mind-altering drugs. You also have a group of like-minded musicians around you.

Providing one or two of the musicians remain sober and can keep the core music together, you can create to your heart's content - as far as the other musicians will allow you to indulge your ego. You can thereby become the catalyst for a group that produces music that is both creative and inspirational - but you are reliant on both the group to provide boundaries for your wild experimentation, and yourself for the same reason. You could, of course, totally let yourself go and sacrifice everything for your art - without having actually developed virtuosic techniques - and inspire both your colleagues and generations of music fans in years to come...

Or you can disappear totally into oblivion, branded a wacko.

Scenario 3: You learn every trick in the book and every rule there is to learn. You practice technical excercises around the clock and devote your entire life to your instrument. You also learn how to write in the same technical manner. You find learning easy, as long as you stick to the rules, but you feel no artistic inclinations - ie you don't play with what you learn, you simply take it as rote.

You can write and perform music of a high technical calibre, and may gain critical acclaim on that level. But it will be sterile and devoid of life, and after a short period of time, your music will all sound very similar. If you already know all the rules and tricks, then there is nothing more you can learn, unless you suddenly develop an imagination. You can work with as many other musicians as you like, but what you do will always sound depressingly familiar and always lack life.

I think most people fit between these three scenarios - but hopefully they all paint a picture that is recognisable

There is always scenario 4: You look pretty and fashionable in a way that can sell products. You have no skill or talent - except to look pretty and fashionable.

You get signed to a major record label stable as part of a boy/girl band, make millions, then fall under the misapprehension that you are somehow musically gifted. You break from the band to make a solo career, and everyone realises what a phoney you are. You fall into obscurity - but if you have more than a few braincells, you'll be fairly well off for a few years. Then you can sue your fellow band members for imagined breaches of contract to keep yourself in the money, make advertisements, appear on celebrity gameshows and "Where are they now" programs on fringe satellite channels.

Exactly so, Jim - and the main reason I enjoy Fish-era Marillion over any other prog band (except, maybe, Camel - for much the same reasons).

Personal taste, ultimately, but "Script..." has more neck hair-raising moments for me than any other album, and "Mirage" has the capacity to "do it" every time where other albums seem less consistent in their mood-enhancing capacity.

To let technicality override melody defeats the point of all music, not just Prog.  Being a brilliant guitarist/keyboardist etc is great, especially for inspired soloing, but self-indulgence should never get in the way of a good tune.

A lot of people have a problem with Prog because they've been led to believe it's all self-indulgent soloing.  While there are some bands who unfortunately justify this claim (many of the prog-metal bands trying to imitate DT come to mind), one of the reasons I love Prog is that the best bands never do let virtuousity get in the way of their music, but use it more as an augmentation.  Being a great musician means you can play much more interesting stuff when you want to, but it also means knowing when to be minimalist in your approach.  Example:  Robert Fripp is undoubtably one the world's great guitar players, but in one of the best pieces of music Crimson ever made (Starless) he creates a truly haunting guitar solo using just two notes on the fretboard.  That is the sign of a great musician.

That’s the main problem guys, I’ll take an example the song Pirates from Works, nobody can deny it’s a song that requires great technical skills and ability, but when the track reaches the central part keeps repeating the same keyboard solo without almost variations.

Almost the same happens with Fanfare for the Common Man, but with the difference that a mediocre band with 10% of the skills of ELP did their own version (5 years before ELP called Movement for a Common Man) and it was really good from start to end despite they were not excellent musicians.

Both songs turn boring, predictable, endless and you wish the authors would have made it halve the length, take on the other hand Close to the Edge (So people won’t say I only use Genesis as an example), it’s a great song but Rick’s solos are fabulous, imaginative and incredibly beautiful, the song never bores you, even when it’s twice the length of Pirates.

That’s the problem with ELP, all are truly skilled, but their project failed after 4 or 5 albums, BSS and Trilogy were their peak (what a peak!!!!) but Works I was a bit disappointing (except Palmer's side) because it was more of the same, lots of skill, endlless solos but lack of variations, and the later albums are even worst, Works II is absolutely predictable and Love Beach or In the Hot Seat, no matter what their hardcore fans believe were terrible albums according 99.9% of the prog’ audience.

The last years ELP was only a stage band with none or very few releases, so people could see how talented they are performing a concert.

Jethro Tull is a band that kept a lower profile, nobody will say Ian Anderson or their always changing members lack of skills, but they are not in the level of a Keith Emerson or Carl Palmer, but with all those limits, they managed to keep the interest of the listener for many more years than ELP jumping from Blues oriented Prog to Folk and pure Rock & Roll, they showed talent, versatility and imagination.

Iván

^ 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'.

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.