Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
Topic: Technicality vs. Musicality Posted: May 24 2011 at 10:05
When I'm drunk I can play a blues leads on guitar in just abiut any key. When I'm sober forget it. F is a hard key on the guitar but if I'm into it but I can go in that series os of shapes as well. . Am I a technical player?
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 24 2011 at 08:54
giselle wrote:
That's very interesting. I think it must be difficult for a singer to express abstraction through melody, though emotions are, in reality, a group of tangential feelings that group together often with an abstract outcome. That should be fertile ground for a singer, full of alternative possibilities, a bit like the best poetry, that tries to give those several meanings one voice - but very difficult to achieve! And always shifting elusively too, I imagine.
The reason is a little more prosaic. The easiest way to emote is to imagine yourself being in the same situation and how you'd speak then. You then put the speech into melody, that's all. That is much more difficult when you are dealing with feelings you don't know how to articulate. Even if you do, how will the audience identify with those as exactly what you intended to express...that's why abstraction is tougher, if not impossible, to express through purely the vocal melody. Even in some Magma tracks with a lot of vocalized sections, there's constant interplay with instruments to create the mood. Whereas if Macca crooned Yesterday without the guitar and violin tracks, you'd still identify with his feelings...or, er, certain feelings at any rate.
Joined: September 29 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 741
Posted: May 24 2011 at 08:18
I'd choose musicality because you can be a virtuoso but not a great composer. It's greater when technically and musicality meets but I'd be on the side of musicality.
La victoire est éphémère mais la gloire est éternelle!
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 24 2011 at 06:50
rogerthat wrote:
Hmm, I have dabbled a fair amount in singing and I don't know that there is a way to express abstraction within the boundaries of straightforward pop melody. I have found abstraction is much better expressed in instrumental music and it's tough for a singer to project that entirely through the vocal melody. I have always come away with a baffling experience as I found so called love songs much more satisfying to render as a singer (which are often regarded heresy in prog circles) though as a proghead, I love abstract music too. So, I fully understand why SD would have tried to bring out abstraction through the chords rather than the melody which is indeed quite straight and plain. It is also tough to emote over tricky chords (though Stevie did it really well on Summer Soft, masterful singing that!) so it could again be argued that their songs would generally have this problem. As I said before, they chose to express certain kinds of emotions which are kind of outside the norm of pop and used a blend of jazz rock/fusion and pop to achieve it. Comparing it with Beatles, who embraced everyday emotions wholeheartedly, would tend to cause disappointment and yes, they are not the composers the Beatles were in my opinion. I just don't think that they were using unusual chords for the sake of it, but of course it is entirely possible you would find it a less satisfying approach because it's a subjective thing.
[/QUOTE]
That's very interesting. I think it must be difficult for a singer to express abstraction through melody, though emotions are, in reality, a group of tangential feelings that group together often with an abstract outcome. That should be fertile ground for a singer, full of alternative possibilities, a bit like the best poetry, that tries to give those several meanings one voice - but very difficult to achieve! And always shifting elusively too, I imagine.
Also of course, as you suggest, what touches each of us and seems to have meaning for the individual can be very different to each person and different from moment to moment too, depending on where we are with ourselves.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 22 2011 at 09:56
giselle wrote:
It’s unfortunate in a way that our discussion centres around SD, who do so many good things it’s difficult to be put in the position of carping critic. I’d rather it was some more obvious target, but then, knowing your good taste, we’d probably have nothing to discuss if that was the case. Nevertheless, I think SD do tend to pair unusual progressions for the sake of it. I like Josie, and it’s a surprisingly straight-forward rather formulaic song, but for the unusual chords pasted onto it. The intro is almost deliberately non-sequential, most of the sense and structure comes from the rhythm of the section rather than the melodic content, the triplets at the end of the sequence giving a feeling of order, but noticeably tailing off with a sequence of four chords that can only be described as having a finality and progression in itself, but having little or no relation to what follows. Fine and somewhat Elegiac as an intro, yes but without that almost-talking rhythm behind the sequence, would any of it make much musical sense at all?
The song itself becomes loaded with major 7th/9ths, a root-note bass giving a feeling of abstraction, and it could be argued that these sounds give the song more strength, albeit from an artificial source. Listening to the sequences, it seems to me that the chords were chosen as a conscious decision, not by any sort of inspiration, but rather by following the logic of the previous chord. This is particularly noticeable in the last line of the verses where the major 7th note of the second last chord is in danger of clashing with the vocal melody line’s minor third. It’s a nice kind of danger, and I’m sure it helps what would be otherwise a ‘straight’ song, but it could also be said to be a kind of ketchup to cheer an otherwise bland meal. To be honest though, had someone else recorded and written the song as a straight piece, with conventional chords, then SD re-arranged and recorded it in the way they do, I would have applauded the difference.
On the other hand, you’re right about the principles behind Nightfly, Fagen can and sometimes does write something akin to pop songs. Reeling in the years remains my favourite, though some of the others are nice too. I like listening to Josie, even though I have those reservations about the song, I can’t knock the way they deal with it. And as regards songs proper, as I said before, at least he tries, that’s more than a lot do.
Hmm, I have dabbled a fair amount in singing and I don't know that there is a way to express abstraction within the boundaries of straightforward pop melody. I have found abstraction is much better expressed in instrumental music and it's tough for a singer to project that entirely through the vocal melody. I have always come away with a baffling experience as I found so called love songs much more satisfying to render as a singer (which are often regarded heresy in prog circles) though as a proghead, I love abstract music too. So, I fully understand why SD would have tried to bring out abstraction through the chords rather than the melody which is indeed quite straight and plain. It is also tough to emote over tricky chords (though Stevie did it really well on Summer Soft, masterful singing that!) so it could again be argued that their songs would generally have this problem. As I said before, they chose to express certain kinds of emotions which are kind of outside the norm of pop and used a blend of jazz rock/fusion and pop to achieve it. Comparing it with Beatles, who embraced everyday emotions wholeheartedly, would tend to cause disappointment and yes, they are not the composers the Beatles were in my opinion. I just don't think that they were using unusual chords for the sake of it, but of course it is entirely possible you would find it a less satisfying approach because it's a subjective thing.
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 22 2011 at 04:42
rogerthat wrote:
NOT performance because performance is purely a concern of playing. I can forgive a good song not being performed so well. But I would definitely look at arrangements too in assessing the overall quality of the song. I cannot post the links here but listening to Josh Brion's arrangements for Fiona Apple's Extraordinary Machine and then the versions that were finally released as album proper is very illustrative of how arrangements can even radically alter the mood of the song. So, in many cases, the arrangements could even be the song itself.
I don't agree with the reasons you have attributed to it but it's true that sometimes, to use the Emperor's new clothes adage, exotic riffs or arrangements are used to pass off songs lacking in a good melody. And this may well be because, from what I understand, it is apparently NOT the American way to write melody first. I also understand from conversations with some aspiring rock musicians I know that they write the riffs first and get to the melody last. I am probably more acutely aware of the impact of this on melody because as an Indian and a listener of a lot of Indian music, I am accustomed to intricate and soulful melodies being wedded to rather predictable arrangements. It has never impeded my enjoying these songs and great melodies also give the singers more width to express themselves. I don't know how European classical composers approached it. If they wrote melody first, it would confirm this line of thinking for me. It's quite possible because melody in great classical compositions is quite memorable.
Anyway, I feel this may be one of the most important reasons why pop/rock songwriting has gradually lost emotional resonance. Notice that arrangements and harmony too have side by side got predictable in an effort to pander to the L.C.D. Makes for a fairly disastrous combination, frankly.
I agree with this last observation and much, if not all, of the previous paragraph.
Probably all his efforts with the exception of Innervisions, a surprisingly socio-politically oriented album, had at least some compromises. Would also explain why he sold out afresh with Hotter than July having broken free from Motown in the first place. Ok, it's actually a pretty good album and has one of his finest ballads Lately but it marks the beginning of the compromise and from thereon would be a steep fall.
For me, Talking Book was his masterpiece, and the best of his writing and coherence. But I have huge admiration for everything he does as a performer and recording artist.
I am not able to concur with this because their other compositional choices don't seem to be inappropriate for the chosen chord progressions. It is quite evident, yes, that these unusual chord progressions interested them immensely but not such that they would pair chord progressions with melody in a wholly unsuitable way. Also, emphasising unusual chords is a great way to manipulate mood. A good example of this is the opening bars of Josie. It immediately sets a tone of mystery for the rest of the song...vintage SD.
As I said earlier, probably a post modern fixation with decadence and cynicism detracted to some extent from emotional resonance in their songs rather than a fixation with performance. That is, I don't think they wanted to write good songs in that conventional sense, they wanted to be nasty, ironic and snidey all the time. That is why the critics loved Nightfly because Fagen broke out of this mould and tried to write appealing pop songs. Did it really well too and by the standards of the 80s, stood out effortlessly.
It’s unfortunate in a way that our discussion centres around SD, who do so many good things it’s difficult to be put in the position of carping critic. I’d rather it was some more obvious target, but then, knowing your good taste, we’d probably have nothing to discuss if that was the case. Nevertheless, I think SD do tend to pair unusual progressions for the sake of it. I like Josie, and it’s a surprisingly straight-forward rather formulaic song, but for the unusual chords pasted onto it. The intro is almost deliberately non-sequential, most of the sense and structure comes from the rhythm of the section rather than the melodic content, the triplets at the end of the sequence giving a feeling of order, but noticeably tailing off with a sequence of four chords that can only be described as having a finality and progression in itself, but having little or no relation to what follows. Fine and somewhat Elegiac as an intro, yes but without that almost-talking rhythm behind the sequence, would any of it make much musical sense at all?
The song itself becomes loaded with major 7th/9ths, a root-note bass giving a feeling of abstraction, and it could be argued that these sounds give the song more strength, albeit from an artificial source. Listening to the sequences, it seems to me that the chords were chosen as a conscious decision, not by any sort of inspiration, but rather by following the logic of the previous chord. This is particularly noticeable in the last line of the verses where the major 7th note of the second last chord is in danger of clashing with the vocal melody line’s minor third. It’s a nice kind of danger, and I’m sure it helps what would be otherwise a ‘straight’ song, but it could also be said to be a kind of ketchup to cheer an otherwise bland meal. To be honest though, had someone else recorded and written the song as a straight piece, with conventional chords, then SD re-arranged and recorded it in the way they do, I would have applauded the difference.
On the other hand, you’re right about the principles behind Nightfly, Fagen can and sometimes does write something akin to pop songs. Reeling in the years remains my favourite, though some of the others are nice too. I like listening to Josie, even though I have those reservations about the song, I can’t knock the way they deal with it. And as regards songs proper, as I said before, at least he tries, that’s more than a lot do.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 21 2011 at 06:04
giselle wrote:
I said we were at odds regarding our idea of a song, and I find it interesting that you choose the phrase ‘a more holistic approach to songwriting’. That confirms to me that what I said about you having at least one eye on arrangement and performance as the song appears is correct (in general terms). In my take on things, the song exists as an entity long before any idea of arrangement or performance comes into it. A skilled arranger or performer then brings his own expertise and vision to the song, bringing it to life in a particular way. This makes clear that the skill of writing a song is completely different to the skills of arrangement, recording, performance. Many of today’s records are produced more in line with the way you describe the process, ie, the ‘song’ develops as an integral part of the recording and performing process. It certainly can be argued that this makes for a more cohesive – or certain – whole, the ‘product’ is usually finely polished and produced. But without doubt it mostly lacks heart and soul because the centre of its core is not a true song.
NOT performance because performance is purely a concern of playing. I can forgive a good song not being performed so well. But I would definitely look at arrangements too in assessing the overall quality of the song. I cannot post the links here but listening to Josh Brion's arrangements for Fiona Apple's Extraordinary Machine and then the versions that were finally released as album proper is very illustrative of how arrangements can even radically alter the mood of the song. So, in many cases, the arrangements could even be the song itself.
I don't agree with the reasons you have attributed to it but it's true that sometimes, to use the Emperor's new clothes adage, exotic riffs or arrangements are used to pass off songs lacking in a good melody. And this may well be because, from what I understand, it is apparently NOT the American way to write melody first. I also understand from conversations with some aspiring rock musicians I know that they write the riffs first and get to the melody last. I am probably more acutely aware of the impact of this on melody because as an Indian and a listener of a lot of Indian music, I am accustomed to intricate and soulful melodies being wedded to rather predictable arrangements. It has never impeded my enjoying these songs and great melodies also give the singers more width to express themselves. I don't know how European classical composers approached it. If they wrote melody first, it would confirm this line of thinking for me. It's quite possible because melody in great classical compositions is quite memorable.
Anyway, I feel this may be one of the most important reasons why pop/rock songwriting has gradually lost emotional resonance. Notice that arrangements and harmony too have side by side got predictable in an effort to pander to the L.C.D. Makes for a fairly disastrous combination, frankly.
giselle wrote:
He is a fantastic artist, and you’re right when you say he doesn’t want to be predictable (though in many of his ‘songs’ he panders to the needs of cabaret and public just the same. The pressures of fame?).
Probably all his efforts with the exception of Innervisions, a surprisingly socio-politically oriented album, had at least some compromises. Would also explain why he sold out afresh with Hotter than July having broken free from Motown in the first place. Ok, it's actually a pretty good album and has one of his finest ballads Lately but it marks the beginning of the compromise and from thereon would be a steep fall.
giselle wrote:
Yes, a compositional element, and can be placed within a song if appropriate. I would argue that much of the time in SD the unusual chord progressions are placed there because they appeal to the musicians to have them there, not because they suit the song - which they often don't. The music they produce is generally always interesting and often impressive, but again, it's more to do with arrangement and performance than pure song-writing. That's not to say that their approach isn't valid, I for one enjoy what they do, but it seems to me to have little to do with quality songs. Then again, to be fair, I would say that SD aren't by any means the worst example of this trend. Fagen and Becker at least try to write good songs, and sometimes succeed.
I am not able to concur with this because their other compositional choices don't seem to be inappropriate for the chosen chord progressions. It is quite evident, yes, that these unusual chord progressions interested them immensely but not such that they would pair chord progressions with melody in a wholly unsuitable way. Also, emphasising unusual chords is a great way to manipulate mood. A good example of this is the opening bars of Josie. It immediately sets a tone of mystery for the rest of the song...vintage SD.
As I said earlier, probably a post modern fixation with decadence and cynicism detracted to some extent from emotional resonance in their songs rather than a fixation with performance. That is, I don't think they wanted to write good songs in that conventional sense, they wanted to be nasty, ironic and snidey all the time. That is why the critics loved Nightfly because Fagen broke out of this mould and tried to write appealing pop songs. Did it really well too and by the standards of the 80s, stood out effortlessly.
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 21 2011 at 04:05
rogerthat wrote:
giselle wrote:
Ah, but a songwriter is more akin to a writer of literature than he is necessarily to a composer. A song could be called an aspect of a composition, but for me, a composition is as much to do with arrangement as melody, and in particular the art of drawing together groups of instruments in a meaningful way. A songwriter just generally writes lyrics and a melody, a composition of a kind for sure, but not, in my terms, akin to Beethoven or Bach or works by progressive artists. In my definition of the term, composition is not song-writing. Then again, within those classical compositions there are some great tunes, but the key word is within.
Again, I don't really understand that idea of a songwriter and I personally prefer a more holistic approach to songwriting, which takes into account arrangements and development. A good melody and lyrics are fine as far as they go, but they may not always accommodate the brilliant or the unusual. Suffice it to say I am glad SW or SD didn't try to conform to that norm of songwriting. For me, as long as a lead vocal or instrument fits within the scope of the song, it will do just fine and I would not be inclined to call it an indulgence. As uduwudu has also said, that is akin to calling any slightly long instrumental passage within a song as an excuse to play, which is not particularly fair on the musician and especially those such as SD or SW, who could write superb parts time and again. I would say I find parts per se rather than the melody or the lyric the most important and vital part of music. To go back to my earlier example, it's great parts that separate Genesis from ELP. If Gabriel didn't write stinging lyrics about England, it wouldn't change a thing for me but Dancing on the Moonlit Knight is just one great part after another sounding so strongly interrelated as if the stars had aligned into a magical position and that is what ELP could never do for me. are.
I said we were at odds regarding our idea of a song, and I find it interesting that you choose the phrase ‘a more holistic approach to songwriting’. That confirms to me that what I said about you having at least one eye on arrangement and performance as the song appears is correct (in general terms). In my take on things, the song exists as an entity long before any idea of arrangement or performance comes into it. A skilled arranger or performer then brings his own expertise and vision to the song, bringing it to life in a particular way. This makes clear that the skill of writing a song is completely different to the skills of arrangement, recording, performance. Many of today’s records are produced more in line with the way you describe the process, ie, the ‘song’ develops as an integral part of the recording and performing process. It certainly can be argued that this makes for a more cohesive – or certain – whole, the ‘product’ is usually finely polished and produced. But without doubt it mostly lacks heart and soul because the centre of its core is not a true song.
giselle wrote:
I don’t believe that Stevie Wonder would underplay his talent for the sake of a song. Whatever marvellous talent he has, I don’t believe he thinks of things in that way, he follows his vocal needs, whatever they are, the song has to fend for itself.
If that was actually the case, he would probably aim to write every song like I Love You Too Much to accommodate his full repertoire of melismas in every nook and corner of the song which is what people who want to show off do (*cough* Christina Augilera*). Whereas, he has written far more restrained and contemplative songs like Too Shy to Say or Visions. And as a casual singer, I can tell you that those two songs are not at all difficult and it's no big feat if he sang them because I could too, you just need a good sense of melody and a fairly supple voice. But because Stevie was more accomplished as a singer and instrumentalist than the Fab Four, we tend to assume that he would want to showcase his talents through his music. But in the 70s, songwriting, I believe, was his main concern and even the reason he stopped conforming to the Motown music assembly line was because he was bored with the same old predictable ideas being regurgitated and felt he had a more original vision to offer.
Of course as a very fine singer he would want to touch every corner of his ability, including “restrained and contemplative”. But his emphasis would always tend to be on the aspect of singing rather than writing, though Stevie is not such a good subject for us to use as opposing examples, in that from my point of view, he isn’t as wide of the mark as many others. He is a fantastic artist, and you’re right when you say he doesn’t want to be predictable (though in many of his ‘songs’ he panders to the needs of cabaret and public just the same. The pressures of fame?).
giselle wrote:
IDonald Fagen would be even unlikelier to follow that route of putting the song first. The hallmark of Steely Dan are those unusual chord progressions and jazzy playing,
Unusual chord progressions are a compositional element, not something that is the concern of playing. Not in the context of SD anyway, where the songs are carefully and deliberately constructed after a lot of effort and retakes. Likewise, jazzy playing is what the song demands, it is not the SD-ers wanting to show they can play jazz. That is why songs like Boddhisatva, My Old School or Black Friday have more rock-based guitar. I would argue they never fully crossed over into jazz anyway prior to Aja. The only thing that changes with respect to SD is the focus on unusual chord progressions makes it a more left brained exercise (counterbalanced effectively by the dripping irony in their lyrics, though) and less purely emotional. However, it is still a purely compositional exercise and not an example of virtuoso musicians not being good at writing music. On the other hand, like several classical and jazz composers before them, harmony entranced them and exploring harmony became the main concern of their music. It is a valid approach in my view.
Yes, a compositional element, and can be placed within a song if appropriate. I would argue that much of the time in SD the unusual chord progressions are placed there because they appeal to the musicians to have them there, not because they suit the song - which they often don't. The music they produce is generally always interesting and often impressive, but again, it's more to do with arrangement and performance than pure song-writing. That's not to say that their approach isn't valid, I for one enjoy what they do, but it seems to me to have little to do with quality songs. Then again, to be fair, I would say that SD aren't by any means the worst example of this trend. Fagen and Becker at least try to write good songs, and sometimes succeed.
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 21 2011 at 03:37
uduwudu wrote:
giselle wrote:
[QUOTE=rogerthat] [QUOTE=giselle]
I certainly wouldn’t describe anything with a vocal melody and cyclical verse/chorus songs. Perhaps something
I agree that much of it is linked to lyrical themes, and it’s not dumb, but for me, it doesn’t work as meaningful songs most of the time, it’s more like excuses to play, ie, the rationale is to do with the performance, not the meaning of the song, which should be at the heart of anything that is to work at the best level. .
An excuse to play... This is the problem with linking songwriting to the constrictions of the Beatles initiated format. So long as a listener is trained to think within formats (3 1/2 minute pop type tune) then the listener cannot grow as a listener. But the "excuse to play" implies a lack a consideration on the poart of the artist / performer. That if there is a saxophone solo for example we have to "endure this so we can get to the words."
But it is not an excuse to play.
There is no need to be constricted when you link song-writing to what you do. Simply take the song, the heart of the piece, and interpret it in your own way, be as complex as you like, if you can manage all the forces contained within. This is exactly what 1-2-3 did back in 66-67, and this was the forgotten blueprint that set much of british prog in motion. Ironically, the band couldn’t adapt their own songs to this format as successfully as they did with the songs of others, and subsequently faded from view. But the idea still holds. Bands like Yes and King Crimson carried the concept forward with spectacular success, but gradually the playing became more important than the songs, and diluted the original idea. The playing became more important than the song, like a glorious cake with a poor filling.
I think there is indeed a lack of consideration about the needs of a song by musicians. That’s why you need a strong man at the helm, like an Ian Anderson, to ensure that the vision stays in focus. For me, the ideal is to be able to have all those marvellous sax solos and everything else that’s possible within the framework, as long as the song remains at the heart of what is happening.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 20 2011 at 23:30
uduwudu wrote:
Yes a song is lyrics and melody. How it is harmonised, reharmonised, re-arranged etc is up to the performer and producer. This is how one can get so many versions of songs.
Not necessarily always. That is one way and the 'traditional' approach, pre Beatles and during their time when they had producers help out with the sound. But bands, especially progressive rock bands, steadily exerted more and more control over this. People like the Danners or Fripp had complete control over all aspects of composition (save lyrics maybe for Fripp and that is not necessarily an aspect of COMPOSITION anyway because in many bands the music writing and lyric writing are segregated functions) and that's the ideal approach, if you ask me (because it's ultimately the guy who wrote the song who knows exactly what it should turn out like). As I said earlier, the problem is people like Danners got less encouragement for a long time in the 70s scene and it's more people who could 'PLAY' who were encouraged, irrespective of their ability to write great music or not. And by play is necessarily meant long jams and improvisations, not virtuoso playing within an accessible, pop/rock format which SD were excellent at.Yes, even in the 70s. It just so happened that even the monotonous technicians and flamboyant performers of the 70s had more flair than the shred machines rock would have to endure in later years. Steely Dan managed to escape oblivion because they still had Aja and Gaucho left in the tank by the time well known first generation proggers and fusioners began to go stagnant and a void emerged in the mainstream in the 70s as not everybody was keen on Van Halen, punk or new wave.
Ah, but a songwriter is more akin to a writer of literature than he is necessarily to a composer. A song could be called an aspect of a composition, but for me, a composition is as much to do with arrangement as melody, and in particular the art of drawing together groups of instruments in a meaningful way. A songwriter just generally writes lyrics and a melody, a composition of a kind for sure, but not, in my terms, akin to Beethoven or Bach or works by progressive artists. In my definition of the term, composition is not song-writing. Then again, within those classical compositions there are some great tunes, but the key word is within.
Yes a song is lyrics and melody. How it is harmonised, reharmonised, re-arranged etc is up to the performer and producer. This is how one can get so many versions of songs.
As for songs within a major work... take Ludo Beethoven for example. He nicked, er, applied a lot of German folk numbers for his 6th Symphony. Rainbow and Jethro Tull re-examined some bits of his 9th (but not the whole shame. Bartok did his turn with Hungarian folk numbers (this composer is so cool to me...) Good stuff within...
In my more overblown and pretentious moments - which as a prog rock fan I know all about I tried having a go at doing (only a bit of) the opening movment of Wolfie's 40th. Mainly 'cause the riff piece is so much fun to play. It has it's main theme and a lot of harmony which piece by piece are quite easy, but not so easy when you are only one of me. Still, it's a good riff and the symphony is a great prog rock side. Might even pre-date the usual first one...
Back to prog rock... there is a thing called Tales from Topographic Oceans by Genesis (kidding...) The second movement features a number called Relayer which IMVVVVHO is a really terrific song within a suite of musical pieces (Oceans really is a symphony). However becuase the tracks haven't been indexed ala Dark Side then things like this get ignored, overlooked, aka Rolling Stoned. A great example of having to think outside the box. Just thought I'd mention something prog rock that has a song... within....
Thing is there are songs that are compositions that are flexible and one can change according to taste. There are things one should not do and sad to say but Stevie Ray Vaughn (of all people) did a version of Stevie W.'s Superstition. Yet another poor version (gotta be careful with that awesome killer riff, and it's hidden harmony which tricks most people (Beck Bogert Appice) not looking at anyone...
I once witnessed Uli Jon Roth, Alex Skolnick, Vernon Reid and one of Guns And Roses guitarists Gilby Clarke (the only one who could sing) jam it. Lots of great guitarists present on that stage. Well, it was informal (and fun) so sins forgiven... Not an easy number and no one can touch Mr Wonder's timeless classic. Yet it's just a melody and lyrics...
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 20 2011 at 20:35
uduwudu wrote:
An excuse to play... that is the bit that allows the listener to interpret muscially what has been said lyrically. Steely Dan were crticised on Aja for "allowing the session musos to solo." The critics hated these 5 - 7 minute tracks. They haven't the attention span, interest or knowledge to apply their own craft. They do have a deadline and this is just a job. I bear that in mind whenever I ignore a professional new music publication.
This criticism makes me laugh. This is the problem with linking songwriting to the constrictions of the Beatles initiated format. So long as a listener is trained to think within formats (3 1/2 minute pop type tune) then the listener cannot grow as a listener. (This is not a criticism of the Beatles (who were very good at their songcraft) - but certainly those who found a $ucce$$ful formula to mine an audience / market and convince that audience that their perceptions are correct so long as they keep paying.
Imagine (if you can) a Beatles solo that went on for longer than 8 bars. Well, omeone did and invented druggy music... progressive...
This links rather well with that problem of S. Wonder being convincing and being a problem with his "sub standard fare." Perceptions are governed, the business knows there is a strong emotional bond between devoted fan and the artist. Mr Wonder will produce whatever he likes as will Mr McCartney (neither of who has put out anything of note for 25 and 30 plus years respectively IMHO but does so very well....)
But the "excuse to play" implies a lack a consideration on the poart of the artist / performer. That if there is a saxophone solo for example we have to "endure this so we can get to the words." I understand this. I recall first hearing DSOTM and finding Us And Them trying my child's patience. But I persevered and enjoyed it since as part of the album (still not a favourite part but I never skip it whenever I play a version of DSOTM once every few years.... it does link to The Final Cut in a huge conceptual work that goes over many albums, but I digress... oops (self indulgent solo...)
Instrumental rock is what progressive music is all about. The demands on the artist and performer are reflected back to the listener amd most mainstream trained listeners will be turned off by "difficult" music. (This is why prog rock gets ignored by Wenner and Co.) I'm sure many of us have heard the negative cricisms.
But it is not an excuse to play. Or not necessarily. Check out Beethovens Violin Concerto (or the Triple Cocerto variant). Who needs a voice? Or Wagner's Ring Cycle Without Words (which makes a greta prog rock album with no opera... must confess to not being too much of an opera fan.) This is the same coin - albeit a different side to the pop tune. There's an irony in there somewhere...
But the instrumental playing is a voice. Not singing as such but it is still a voice and must be heard in that context.
One has to question perceptions (I am always doing that,,, I even heard
an interesting techno track a week ago. Well, more interesting than
usual...) A great example is the last ever version (by the original Zeppelin) of Stairway in Berlin 1980. Not sure if Plant knew what was in store but the instrumental section (guitar solo for those who don't hear rhythm and harmony) is extended with Page performing Plant's vocal as the second part of his instrumental before Plant reinforces it with the lyrics. Yes I know it's unofficial but there we are, check it out (beautiful soundboard somewhere on the Net near you). It's well worth the 16 minute length. Especially as it follows on from a unique Whole Lotta Love that went on for so long Achilles had to be dropped which really annoyed me...
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 20 2011 at 20:31
giselle wrote:
Ah, but a songwriter is more akin to a writer of literature than he is necessarily to a composer. A song could be called an aspect of a composition, but for me, a composition is as much to do with arrangement as melody, and in particular the art of drawing together groups of instruments in a meaningful way. A songwriter just generally writes lyrics and a melody, a composition of a kind for sure, but not, in my terms, akin to Beethoven or Bach or works by progressive artists. In my definition of the term, composition is not song-writing. Then again, within those classical compositions there are some great tunes, but the key word is within.
Again, I don't really understand that idea of a songwriter and I personally prefer a more holistic approach to songwriting, which takes into account arrangements and development. A good melody and lyrics are fine as far as they go, but they may not always accommodate the brilliant or the unusual. Suffice it to say I am glad SW or SD didn't try to conform to that norm of songwriting. For me, as long as a lead vocal or instrument fits within the scope of the song, it will do just fine and I would not be inclined to call it an indulgence. As uduwudu has also said, that is akin to calling any slightly long instrumental passage within a song as an excuse to play, which is not particularly fair on the musician and especially those such as SD or SW, who could write superb parts time and again. I would say I find parts per se rather than the melody or the lyric the most important and vital part of music. To go back to my earlier example, it's great parts that separate Genesis from ELP. If Gabriel didn't write stinging lyrics about England, it wouldn't change a thing for me but Dancing on the Moonlit Knight is just one great part after another sounding so strongly interrelated as if the stars had aligned into a magical position and that is what ELP could never do for me. are.
giselle wrote:
I don’t believe that Stevie Wonder would underplay his talent for the sake of a song. Whatever marvellous talent he has, I don’t believe he thinks of things in that way, he follows his vocal needs, whatever they are, the song has to fend for itself.
If
that was actually the case, he would probably aim to write every song like I Love You Too Much to accommodate his full repertoire of melismas in every nook and corner of the song which is what people who want to show off do (*cough* Christina Augilera*). Whereas, he has written far more restrained and contemplative songs like Too Shy to Say or Visions. And as a casual singer, I can tell you that those two songs are not at all difficult and it's no big feat if he sang them because I could too, you just need a good sense of melody and a fairly supple voice. But because Stevie was more accomplished as a singer and instrumentalist than the Fab Four, we tend to assume that he would want to showcase his talents through his music. But in the 70s, songwriting, I believe, was his main concern and even the reason he stopped conforming to the Motown music assembly line was because he was bored with the same old predictable ideas being regurgitated and felt he had a more original vision to offer.
giselle wrote:
IDonald Fagen would be even unlikelier to follow that route of putting the song first. The hallmark of Steely Dan are those unusual chord progressions and jazzy playing,
Unusual chord progressions are a compositional element, not something that is the concern of playing. Not in the context of SD anyway, where the songs are carefully and deliberately constructed after a lot of effort and retakes. Likewise, jazzy playing is what the song demands, it is not the SD-ers wanting to show they can play jazz. That is why songs like Boddhisatva, My Old School or Black Friday have more rock-based guitar. I would argue they never fully crossed over into jazz anyway prior to Aja. The only thing that changes with respect to SD is the focus on unusual chord progressions makes it a more left brained exercise (counterbalanced effectively by the dripping irony in their lyrics, though) and less purely emotional. However, it is still a purely compositional exercise and not an example of virtuoso musicians not being good at writing music. On the other hand, like several classical and jazz composers before them, harmony entranced them and exploring harmony became the main concern of their music. It is a valid approach in my view.
I certainly wouldn’t describe anything with a vocal melody and cyclical verse/chorus songs. Perhaps something striving to be a song would be my take on it, though perhaps I'm being too idealistic, only allowing inspirational songs to be thus described? Interesting too that you choose Stevie Wonder as another indicator. I wouldn’t personally think of Stevie Wonder as a genuine songwriter. To me he’s somebody more along the lines of Fagen in that sense, ie, someone who mainly puts together things he thinks are songs (or that strive to be?), and now and again comes up with something that is more along the lines, like “You and I” or “Sunshine of my Life”. To me, he’s actually a good example of a great musician and even better singer devaluing what he does by doing too much of his own rather sub-standard writing.Of course, he is such a fabulous performer that he can be very convincing doing almost anything, and that’s a problem too.
And most of SD's songs are not half formed or mere riff excursions at all (which would become a pattern in the 80s) and they are generally tightly linked to lyrical themes. Their post modern decadence is not for everyone, but well, that is their choice and nothing that takes away from the merit of their work. Oh, and by the way, Donald Fagen's solo album from 1981 The Nightfly has excellent songs, with very different moods from SD, though essentially in the style used on Gaucho.
I agree that much of it is linked to lyrical themes, and it’s not dumb, but for me, it doesn’t work as meaningful songs most of the time, it’s more like excuses to play, ie, the rationale is to do with the performance, not the meaning of the song, which should be at the heart of anything that is to work at the best level. .
An excuse to play... that is the bit that allows the listener to interpret muscially what has been said lyrically. Steely Dan were crticised on Aja for "allowing the session musos to solo." The critics hated these 5 - 7 minute tracks. They haven't the attention span, interest or knowledge to apply their own craft. They do have a deadline and this is just a job. I bear that in mind whenever I ignore a professional new music publication.
This criticism makes me laugh. This is the problem with linking songwriting to the constrictions of the Beatles initiated format. So long as a listener is trained to think within formats (3 1/2 minute pop type tune) then the listener cannot grow as a listener. (This is not a criticism of the Beatles (who were very good at their songcraft) - but certainly those who found a $ucce$$ful formula to mine an audience / market and convince that audience that their perceptions are correct so long as they keep paying.
Imagine (if you can) a Beatles solo that went on for longer than 8 bars. Well, omeone did and invented druggy music... progressive...
This links rather well with that problem of S. Wonder being convincing and being a problem with his "sub standard fare." Perceptions are governed, the business knows there is a strong emotional bond between devoted fan and the artist. Mr Wonder will produce whatever he likes as will Mr McCartney (neither of who has put out anything of note for 25 and 30 plus years respectively IMHO but does so very well....)
But the "excuse to play" implies a lack a consideration on the poart of the artist / performer. That if there is a saxophone solo for example we have to "endure this so we can get to the words." I understand this. I recall first hearing DSOTM and finding Us And Them trying my child's patience. But I persevered and enjoyed it since as part of the album (still not a favourite part but I never skip it whenever I play a version of DSOTM once every few years.... it does link to The Final Cut in a huge conceptual work that goes over many albums, but I digress... oops (self indulgent solo...)
Instrumental rock is what progressive music is all about. The demands on the artist and performer are reflected back to the listener amd most mainstream trained listeners will be turned off by "difficult" music. (This is why prog rock gets ignored by Wenner and Co.) I'm sure many of us have heard the negative cricisms.
But it is not an excuse to play. Or not necessarily. Check out Beethovens Violin Concerto (or the Triple Cocerto variant). Who needs a voice? Or Wagner's Ring Cycle Without Words (which makes a greta prog rock album with no opera... must confess to not being too much of an opera fan.) This is the same coin - albeit a different side to the pop tune. There's an irony in there somewhere...
But the instrumental playing is a voice. Not singing as such but it is still a voice and must be heard in that context.
One has to question perceptions (I am always doing that,,, I even heard
an interesting techno track a week ago. Well, more interesting than
usual...) A great example is the last ever version (by the original Zeppelin) of Stairway in Berlin 1980. Not sure if Plant knew what was in store but the instrumental section (guitar solo for those who don't hear rhythm and harmony) is extended with Page performing Plant's vocal as the second part of his instrumental before Plant reinforces it with the lyrics. Yes I know it's unofficial but there we are, check it out (beautiful soundboard somewhere on the Net near you). It's well worth the 16 minute length. Especially as it follows on from a unique Whole Lotta Love that went on for so long Achilles had to be dropped which really annoyed me...
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 20 2011 at 16:52
rogerthat wrote:
giselle wrote:
We’re at odds here, yet there is a measure of agreement. There are writers who conform to the model you describe, but it certainly doesn’t apply to every good writer.
The most talented composer (within the so called 'light' or popular music epoch and excluding classical) I have heard was well versed in both the Western medium and Carnatic music and could write 60 minute long passages of music in, um, about 60 minutes, maybe less. Since his knowledge never seemed to come in the way of making music that appealed to both the serious listener and the uninformed, I don't think music theory or knowledge is in any way an impediment to good music composition and only facilitates it. If learned musicians cannot 'stoop down' to write emotionally resonant and elegant music and would rather occupy rarefied dissonant outer spaces, that's unfortunate but blame the carpenter and not his implements. Of course, as I have also agreed earlier, you CAN write songs without being an encyclopedia of musical knowledge but it doesn't come in the way, imo.
Ah, but a songwriter is more akin to a writer of literature than he is necessarily to a composer. A song could be called an aspect of a composition, but for me, a composition is as much to do with arrangement as melody, and in particular the art of drawing together groups of instruments in a meaningful way. A songwriter just generally writes lyrics and a melody, a composition of a kind for sure, but not, in my terms, akin to Beethoven or Bach or works by progressive artists. In my definition of the term, composition is not song-writing. Then again, within those classical compositions there are some great tunes, but the key word is within.
My point about the music getting in the way is that knowing what they know, a musician would never write a song in a way that contravened his sense of musical order, as for example, McCartney would never have written in the way that Lennon did. Because Lennon wasn’t a particularly skilled musician, he was unaware of the supposed limitations, and that allowed him to cross barriers and produce the unexpected. Of course, I must concede that it can also cause the mundane and ridiculous.
giselle wrote:
Again, I agree with much of what you say, especially about the Beatles doing it with top class songwriting but not virtuoso playing, and that legacy being drowned somewhere etc. But I don’t agree that a musician can necessarily write songs. In fact, I’d say that often knowledge of music can stand in the way of a good song, though that fact isn’t written on a stone tablet. Yes I agree about the encouragement of musicians to write, that’s basically what I said. I’d also agree with your points about ELP. It’s rather amusing that we can agree and disagree so much in the same discussion! A lot of what you say in this paragraph is a perfect description of why we got to where we are.
You don't agree because your definition of a musician is itself different from mine and i have no quarrel with that because it is the common meaning of the term. But I feel a musician has to be a diligent student of music and that cannot be unless you seriously occupy your attention with writing music (and otherwise, he's just a performer, not that performers aren't desirable, they just shouldn't dominate songwriting in the bands they are in). And a person who can write music should in theory be able to write good songs. What he does with his ability is up to him, but again, the ability should by all means be a facilitator and not an obstacle.
I think you’re totally wrong about saying a musician has to write. Many very fine musicians have no skill or talent in that way, and all such a requirement will produce is mediocrity. Horses for courses.
I will not respond right now regarding Fagen or Wonder because I don't really understand what you mean by good songwriting. Some examples and let's see if I can relate to that? I would totally call Visions or Summer Soft great songs and they don't really come across as exhibitionism to me. Rather, I wonder that he underplays his talent for the sake of the song (and I know what he would sound like if he did show off as he started to in later years ). In Steely Dan's work too, I felt that unusual chord progressions and tough lead guitar were given a suitable and functional context where in so much rock music, guitarists go off on shred trips under the pretext of self expression. Yeah...I wouldn't even spare the Stairway ...solo. I know Robert Christgau finds SD's functional solos a weakness, but I prefer it that way. Maybe it's because I don't find pure improvisation so enjoyable in a studio album context and prefer it in the live setting. Of course, if the solos came across as flashy to you, you are entitled to your opinion.
I don’t think there would be any point in us comparing our idea of songs, because it’s clear in that way we are poles apart. I think we’re looking in the opposite directions and not seeing what the other sees (hearing what the other hears).
I don’t believe that Stevie Wonder would underplay his talent for the sake of a song. Whatever marvellous talent he has, I don’t believe he thinks of things in that way, he follows his vocal needs, whatever they are, the song has to fend for itself.
Donald Fagen would be even unlikelier to follow that route of putting the song first. The hallmark of Steely Dan are those unusual chord progressions and jazzy playing, the songs are mere skeletons to allow that improvisation, albeit with sometimes thoughtful lyrics, admittedly unusual in that setting. I don’t consider the solos flashy, for me, the playing and virtuosity of the musicians IS Steely Dan, not the songs at all.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 20 2011 at 10:51
giselle wrote:
We’re at odds here, yet there is a measure of agreement. There are writers who conform to the model you describe, but it certainly doesn’t apply to every good writer.
The most talented composer (within the so called 'light' or popular music epoch and excluding classical) I have heard was well versed in both the Western medium and Carnatic music and could write 60 minute long passages of music in, um, about 60 minutes, maybe less. Since his knowledge never seemed to come in the way of making music that appealed to both the serious listener and the uninformed, I don't think music theory or knowledge is in any way an impediment to good music composition and only facilitates it. If learned musicians cannot 'stoop down' to write emotionally resonant and elegant music and would rather occupy rarefied dissonant outer spaces, that's unfortunate but blame the carpenter and not his implements. Of course, as I have also agreed earlier, you CAN write songs without being an encyclopedia of musical knowledge but it doesn't come in the way, imo.
giselle wrote:
Again, I agree with much of what you say, especially about the Beatles doing it with top class songwriting but not virtuoso playing, and that legacy being drowned somewhere etc. But I don’t agree that a musician can necessarily write songs. In fact, I’d say that often knowledge of music can stand in the way of a good song, though that fact isn’t written on a stone tablet. Yes I agree about the encouragement of musicians to write, that’s basically what I said. I’d also agree with your points about ELP. It’s rather amusing that we can agree and disagree so much in the same discussion! A lot of what you say in this paragraph is a perfect description of why we got to where we are.
You don't agree because your definition of a musician is itself different from mine and i have no quarrel with that because it is the common meaning of the term. But I feel a musician has to be a diligent student of music and that cannot be unless you seriously occupy your attention with writing music (and otherwise, he's just a performer, not that performers aren't desirable, they just shouldn't dominate songwriting in the bands they are in). And a person who can write music should in theory be able to write good songs. What he does with his ability is up to him, but again, the ability should by all means be a facilitator and not an obstacle.
I will not respond right now regarding Fagen or Wonder because I don't really understand what you mean by good songwriting. Some examples and let's see if I can relate to that? I would totally call Visions or Summer Soft great songs and they don't really come across as exhibitionism to me. Rather, I wonder that he underplays his talent for the sake of the song (and I know what he would sound like if he did show off as he started to in later years ). In Steely Dan's work too, I felt that unusual chord progressions and tough lead guitar were given a suitable and functional context where in so much rock music, guitarists go off on shred trips under the pretext of self expression. Yeah...I wouldn't even spare the Stairway ...solo. I know Robert Christgau finds SD's functional solos a weakness, but I prefer it that way. Maybe it's because I don't find pure improvisation so enjoyable in a studio album context and prefer it in the live setting. Of course, if the solos came across as flashy to you, you are entitled to your opinion.
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 20 2011 at 10:08
rogerthat wrote:
giselle wrote:
. I think most good writers know a lot about songs, song structure, and tradition, rather than just music itself,
Disagree with this. Possibly, good composers know the full vertical well and especially also what they can get out of singers and musicians. So, they would have to know about music. Many of these composers made their way into the industry by first playing gigs at a small level to sustain themselves. It could get very difficult, practically, to operate as a composer and get the performers to play your songs if you don't know about music. People have done that too, but many composers are generally equipped and 'educated'.
We’re at odds here, yet there is a measure of agreement. There are writers who conform to the model you describe, but it certainly doesn’t apply to every good writer.
giselle wrote:
One of the downsides of the success of The Beatles was to make it almost obligatory to write your own music as well as play it. That's led to a lot of very poor songwriting.
I don't think that is per se a problem. As I said earlier, I'd expect a musician per se to able to write songs and they would have done well anyway. What distorted the direction of rock critique and the things that get appreciated more in rock was probably Woodstock. It has over the years caused critics and audiences to place far too much importance on the live act of the band, and then on the spectacle of it rather the substance.
When Beatles set rock free from the clutches of the labels, they did it with top class songwriting, not virtuoso playing. But that legacy got drowned somewhere and people who could play very well but did not necessarily have such a great compositional vision were encouraged more and more. Why were ELP the most popular prog rock band of the 70s and not Genesis (not in the Gabriel years, that is)? Because they had the most popular live act. Critics did not seem to realize that the more important thing is to produce quality albums and not to load bands with terrific performers (who weren't necessarily always the best at writing songs).
Again, I agree with much of what you say, especially about the Beatles doing it with top class songwriting but not virtuoso playing, and that legacy being drowned somewhere etc. But I don’t agree that a musician can necessarily write songs. In fact, I’d say that often knowledge of music can stand in the way of a good song, though that fact isn’t written on a stone tablet. Yes I agree about the encouragement of musicians to write, that’s basically what I said. I’d also agree with your points about ELP. It’s rather amusing that we can agree and disagree so much in the same discussion! A lot of what you say in this paragraph is a perfect description of why we got to where we are.
giselle wrote:
I wouldn't for instance consider Donald Fagen a good songwriter for the body of work he's produced, though he's obviously a terrific musician. More songs like "Reeling in the Years" might have changed my mind, but there wasn't enough of that, so I have to consider it a flash in the pan (IMO!). He does compose interesting and complex music, but that's not the same thing as songs, and that's my point.
I don't know, I call anything with vocal melody in a cyclical verse/chorus as songs and Steely Dan wrote some of the best of those in the 70s, behind only a few like Stevie Wonder and ahead of more illustrious forces in rock like Led Zeppelin who mainly put together rambling rifferama that, for me, goes nowhere at the end of the day. LZ is again a good example of the above para I wrote. More live flamboyance than songwriting brilliance (not to say they had none of the latter).
I certainly wouldn’t describe anything with a vocal melody and cyclical verse/chorus songs. Perhaps something striving to be a song would be my take on it, though perhaps I'm being too idealistic, only allowing inspirational songs to be thus described? Interesting too that you choose Stevie Wonder as another indicator. I wouldn’t personally think of Stevie Wonder as a genuine songwriter. To me he’s somebody more along the lines of Fagen in that sense, ie, someone who mainly puts together things he thinks are songs (or that strive to be?), and now and again comes up with something that is more along the lines, like “You and I” or “Sunshine of my Life”. To me, he’s actually a good example of a great musician and even better singer devaluing what he does by doing too much of his own rather sub-standard writing.Of course, he is such a fabulous performer that he can be very convincing doing almost anything, and that’s a problem too.
And most of SD's songs are not half formed or mere riff excursions at all (which would become a pattern in the 80s) and they are generally tightly linked to lyrical themes. Their post modern decadence is not for everyone, but well, that is their choice and nothing that takes away from the merit of their work. Oh, and by the way, Donald Fagen's solo album from 1981 The Nightfly has excellent songs, with very different moods from SD, though essentially in the style used on Gaucho.
I agree that much of it is linked to lyrical themes, and it’s not dumb, but for me, it doesn’t work as meaningful songs most of the time, it’s more like excuses to play, ie, the rationale is to do with the performance, not the meaning of the song, which should be at the heart of anything that is to work at the best level.
In any case, this defence of SD is beside the point which was simply that Fagen is great at writing music while Malmsteen is only great at playing it on guitar.
Good comparison. And you don’t need to defend SD to me in terms of what they do as a whole, I like it a lot. I just think that with better songs it could reach another level.
I recall this quote (not verbatim... by Elton John. He (apparently) felt sorry for guitar players who get too concerned with a great riff (and presumably nothing more than that). Unlike pianists one supposes. Anyway the more oriented toward an instrument a muso is the more he writes for that instrument. e.g. Mark King (Level 42), Stanley Clarke ( lthought the suspect standard of alot od earlier solo out put makes me think he gets confused... Herman Rarebell, Cozy Powell (oh good, drummers writing melodies on their kits...) ;),
A good example of a muso who was pretty good at what he did but always happy to let a "specialist" do the necessary is (IMHO) the somewhat overlooked and underrated George Harrison. I know, I kknow... underrated Beatle? Yer what?! But yes. A song writer (who could sing) who could do some nice guitar work and made more outstanding tunes in later Beatle years than those others whatever their names were. viz All Things Must Pass.
One example I have of technique vs musicality (I interpet this as songman ship) is a Jeff Beck gig I amnaged to get o. Along with Tony Hymas and Terry Bozzio they proceeed to play Guitar Shop material. Shame I don't like it. But that I put down to no bass player. Anyway it struck me and my date that it was not exactly the most generous of music. Lots of amazing stuff for an analyst to appreciate but not a listener to like... (that was the only time I did wonder about Beck's approach.)
On the other hand he had White Stripes along. Jack White led on some Yardbird numbers and did great with Beck and his excellent band accompanying. Big fail is White's drummer. No song smith, no drummer either this (IMHO) was dreadul and clearly a gimmick. No technique nor songs. Jeeznis, I might as well be listening to techno... (which could be really good if someone paid attention to detail...
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 19 2011 at 19:59
uduwudu wrote:
A very good example of musicality / technique and the appropriate success ratio is that of the 80s technoo freks Yngwie and many others. Many albums (all LPs and pre CD) got released and filled the sale bins around the world. Yet they were all guitar whizzes.
Alot of the criticism from the letters to press went along the lines of too loud,too fats etc. Critic Chris Welch thought no one had levelled these osrt of criticisms at guitarists like Beck, Howe, Hendrix etc. Je though Jason Becker, Yngwie et all were great. Yet the albums did not sell. Why not? Plenty of rock fans loved exciting, interesting playing - even if only they thought so and no one else did. (Like here on PA at times...;)
The factor I identified in these examples was individuality, uniqueness and having something to say. They had different ways of saying it. As opposed to the same way that the "trained" axe meisters have. Alot of people dug the 80s guitar slingers but only the best (e.g. Satch) live on now. I've only the one Satch album at the moment (Professor Satchifunkilinkus) but the key factor is a thing called melody. The pieces are instrumentals but they are very good tunes and at least 1 being great. Naturally his technique is the very best. A good way of hearing the imporatnt difference is getting hold of a boot (nothing official yet) of Satch with Deep Peuple. A great technician playing great songs. His sucessor Steve Morse is an amazing guitarist with the Dixie Dregs with great music. Morse has also been creatively and commercially successful with Deep Purple. Not bad for some one who had to undergo 3 auditions to be a back up player for De Lucia, McLaughlin and Di Meola.
The difference between technique and musicality is like going to a music clinic (any will do - they are very academic) and listening to someone play a composition. One is a demonstration the other is performance. Getting the two confused created a problem.
It's a little like music fans not being able to distinguish between objectivity (too dry, academic, intellectual) and subjectivity (I love it therefore it is great). The thing is people can distinguish but not necessarily identify cogently these factors. Thus the 80s guitar hot shots fired damp squibs with not a memorable tune between them and the 60s / 70s innovators are still pulling in crowds.
And having their albums pirated en masse. Or do I mean sold?
I think this is probably what the OP addressed. I wish Hughes still posted on this forum, would have been fun!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Technicality vs. Musicality
Topic Options
giselle wrote:
That is why the critics loved Nightfly because Fagen broke out of this mould and tried to write appealing pop songs. Did it really well too and by the standards of the 80s, stood out effortlessly.
I tried having a go at doing (only a bit of) the opening movment of Wolfie's 40th. Mainly 'cause the riff piece is so much fun to play. It has it's main theme and a lot of harmony which piece by piece are quite easy, but not so easy when you are only one of me. Still, it's a good riff and the symphony is a great prog rock side. Might even pre-date the usual first one...
). In Steely Dan's work too, I felt that unusual chord progressions and tough lead guitar were given a suitable and functional context where in so much rock music, guitarists go off on shred trips under the pretext of self expression. Yeah...I wouldn't even spare the Stairway ...solo. I know Robert Christgau finds SD's functional solos a weakness, but I prefer it that way. Maybe it's because I don't find pure improvisation so enjoyable in a studio album context and prefer it in the live setting. Of course, if the solos came across as flashy to you, you are entitled to your opinion.