Is Prog For Musicians Only?

I disagree that prog is for musicians (oh how I wish that were true so I could feel elite; come on, you know you want to), but agree that musicians are for prog. My example of this influence is my own playing: before I heard Wakeman, Banks, Emerson, Wright, Eno, and Fripp playing keyboards, I had no aspirations to play piano. Before I heard Squire, Lee, Rutherford, Lake, and Reingold on bass guitar, there was no reason for me to play it.

All I had heard in "lesser" music (prepares heat shield), such as the stadium rock bands, pop music, etc, was a steady riff with very little variation. With our masters in the progressive genres, on all sides, I became very oriented toward music. I think that because of prog I have come to appreciate harmony, melody, rhythm, and music in all aspects much more clearly.

Arrrghus wrote: Chus wrote: TheLamb wrote: Whoever says to be a musician requires Knowledge in Theory is just a not very serious person... I study classical piano since a very young age. I practice 10 hours a day when I have the time... Believe me, I know a hella lotta theory and It has helped me in the technical part of composing and improvising, but music is all about spirit, and feeling what your doing... Not knowing everything... If you are as talented as a rat and you study theory like crazy does that does not make you a musician... To tell you the truth, someties I feel I would have done better off without theory... Whoever says Jimmy Hendrix is not a musician is just unworthy of... listening to music in general.   As for Prog.... It depends which type of prog... Bands like Dream Theater could be farther appreciated by Musicians because their music sometimes seems cold and mathy... technical, even scientific. If you understand the theory and technical aspect of what they are doing it just gives you an edge on people who don't... where as bands who are more atmospheric and warm, who use complexity and "proginess" to actually create an atmosphere rather than a very impressive piece, DT style... these bands could be basically appreciated by anyone...     Of course i am makng bold generalizations, and don't start being narrow minded about this post, nothing is 100%. there are always exceptions... in everything...    Well perhaps calling him a non-musician at the expense of lacking knowledge of theory is a bit harsh, but I believe I make my point calling him an amateur musician.  I never wanted to put down Jimi Hendrix as an influential guitarist with innate talent. In fact, I enjoy his music to an extent and his phrasing is fantastic, but I would never call him a professional musician because of his bare influence    And to the general public: since when someone who recognises technical skill is bound to like cold, mathematical music? I think that's a stupid generalisation. Some people rely on technical skill alone (licks), some rely on musicianship and technical skill (notes), else how would you put the infamous Charlie Parker, perhaps one of the most amazing jazz improvisers? is he a mathematical musician just because he's technically good? I believe his playing transmits even more than a simple so-called "emotional" lick by Gilmour. Making just a couple of notes on a measure doesn't make a player more emotional, it makes him "raw" or "direct"; I believe people like Charlie Parker are able to make a very profound musical poetry, he could embellish the measure putting more notes on it, without it all sounding like w**kery. And about DT not being emotional: that's all subjective. I, for one, believe they could be emotional at times, but I don't necessarily have to share the emotions they convey.   Hendrix was definately a professional musician: he played and instrument and was played for it. You do realize you're calling Steve Howe an amateur musician, too? (He admitted in an interview that he couldn't read music). Music doesn't have to be "written down" to be "music." Also, Django Rheinhart could not read music (hell, some speculate he couldn't read at all), yet Segovia respected him tremendously and once asked Django for sheet (for which Djano famously replied that he was improvising). Does this make him less professional or less of a musician than Andres? Of course not. That would be superficial and arrogant. It's like saying Bob is smarter than Rick because Bob has a Masters degree while Rick only has a bachelor's. Knowledge doesn't translate into intelligence - experience, thought and the appropriate conveying of emotions translate into intelligence.

Edited by Chus - March 12 2007 at 15:43

Atavachron wrote: Sasquamo wrote: Atavachron wrote: Chus wrote: con safo wrote: okJimi Hendrix was not a musician?    GREAT guitar player and bluesman, but I wouldn't know if he had enough understanding of music theory to be called musician per se.       He's right, you know.  I doubt he knew a whole lot if anything about music. ...and neither will you if you maintain this point of view for a few more years. In fact, Hendrix probably knew more about music in general than most classical players.. he's what's called a natural-- it's not about how much he does or does not 'know' because he could play anything if he wanted to; Jazz? No problem, and he'd probably blow away some of the best jazz guitarists. Classical? Give him a few days, he'd probably write a Concerto in Heavy Blues. Didn't read music? You assume that means he couldn't or wouldn't. And we don't know if that is entirely true, he may have been learning to read before he died.

So ignorant...  People idolize a player and think he can do anything.  Not true.  Jazz just requires knowledge of theory.  Period.  All the highly esteemed jazz musicians know their chords and scales.  It's just how it works.  And composing a classical piece...well that's just a different story.

Anyway, I concede, anyone who plays an instrument is a musician by definition, but still applies that playing an instrument and being famous doesn't automatically make you a "professional" musician.

You can "know" theory without having studied it. Some people just have an ear for it. They know intuitively what works and what doesn't. Such was the case with Hendrix and many of the early jazz masters.

I believe as others have mentioned, that if you don't have an 'ear' or a 'feel' for music you don't reach that higher level as a player, writer, singer or even performer. Knowing all the theory under the sun and possessing pyrotechnical skills 'don't mean a thing if you aint got that swing'.

There's been a lot of talk about instrumental players , but very little so far about vocalists . Natural phrasing and the feel for the song, it's lyrics and it's emotion and the ability to get it across to your audience cannot be written on a score like rhythm/timing and note for note technicality can. It's all in the interpretation .

There are just so many examples of great singers who could not sight read to save themselves to mention here. The same applies to some extent to instrumentalists as has been discussed.

Jazz provides a great platform for the display of technical abilities through solo improvisation, time signatures and rhythm changes and vocals to mention a few . Fusion allows different elements to be introduced , especially electric and electronic instruments. Big band jazz is more technically structured and orchestrated with less emphasis on improv. except in the soloing. Progressive music though can incorporate all or any of such elements in different adaptations and often does - that's what's so interesting about it.

But if you are a musician , learning or already accomplished , it still comes down to a combination of all these elements imo i.e theory, technical proficiency through practise, ear and feel. Some of it is acquired through hard work and some of it some are lucky enough to be born with. Any one of these qualities may help you to 'get' prog and I personally believe it does. But musical appreciation is relative and a personal thing .

Therefore, although I have my own take on it, I'm not about to tell anyone else who may not be a musician or have some musical background that their quality of appreciation is some how deficient compared to mine or anyone else's for that matter . I'm sure we all have friends who are not from this background who enjoy their prog just as much as anyone else. But my musical background helps me to appreciate it in my own way in the same way as I appreciate jazz , classical, latin, musical theatre or whatever.

It also allows me to draw the line at Country and Western [as distinct from Country rock], for which, personally speaking, I have a very low level of tolerance. It's one area of music where talent in these elements I have referred to can count for very little because you don't always need it to succeed. Hey, but people love it and it's their prerogative so who am I to say . Some people like this [ but not all I know ]are making sh#tloads out of it, so good luck to them. In this case musical appreciation helps me to decide that it aint for me.

No, of course prog is not for musicians only!! Where the hell did that come from? Being this kind of music pretty complex and the prescence of virtuosism does not mean just musicians can listen and enjoy it!

Yes, I remember the thread Chus, Can't remember how it ended though.

I understand and quite agreee with your notion of professionalism when it comes to music. Likewise, I also don't believe that lack of theoretical knowledge automatically equaltes to bad music or inferior musicians. But I do believe strongly that studying theory enhances both the playing and the listening exerience.

Part of the issue that has arisen is due to the terminology. In the US the words professional and amateur have very strong cultural definitions regarding being paid for one's efforts (amateurs work for free while professionals are paid). I think that "natural" and "classically trained" might be more accepted terms.

Both classes of musician have their limitations and the ideal musician is someone who manages to combine the two. In the music school where I teach, students are often dumbfounded by my ability to pick out melodies by ear. They have years of training and can play the crap out of their instrument, but can't pick Mary Had A Little lamb out at the keyboard without the music.

Similarly, guys I play with in rock bands etc. are amazed at anyone who can transpose to a new key on the fly (something you learn by study, not by intuition).

So, in the long run having some natural ability and then using serious study and hard work to develop it seems to me to make the most well-rounded musician, and I think it might explain why prog is ofetn considered music for musicians. The players and writers who created this genre were classically trained more often than their pop music / Hard rock counterparts.

A basic understanding of music theory and form aren't necessary to enjoy Close to the Edge, but to someone who does have that traing the facets of the song just open up like a flower and it could not have been written without that training, it would have neded up another 20 minute Psychedlic jam instead. The sonata-allegro formal structure IS what makes that song work and the structure could not have been arrived at through intuition.

Hendrix was like this savant type of character with the guitar, but given the choice, I'd rather be Beethoven than Rain Man.

Edited by Trademark - March 13 2007 at 18:20

Sasquamo wrote: So ignorant...  People idolize a player and think he can do anything. Not true. - Actually I don't idolize Hendrix, I simply acknowledge his natural gifts.  Jazz just requires knowledge of theory.  Period.  All the highly esteemed jazz musicians know their chords and scales.  It's just how it works. - They do, but it isn't required to play jazz, it just helps tremendously if you want to be a serious jazz contender and to communicate to other jazz players when jamming or recording. And composing a classical piece...well that's just a different story. - ...and? Anyway, I concede, anyone who plays an instrument is a musician by definition, but still applies that playing an instrument and being famous doesn't automatically make you a "professional" musician - Anyone who plays for compensation is professional, famous or not..

If I remember correctly, none of the Beatles were "trained" musicians, with Paul being the only one who could "read" music. Damn.Now  I find that their music was worthless dreck. Heck, I'd even read some early critics noting of myloxydian chords changes etc ..., not that I knew or cared, the song(s) themselves were still what they were. Knowing what type of arrangement a composition is as relevant as knowing what sort of paint an artist used.
And finally to quote old John - "It's just music, people!"

Here is an interesting thought about the "untrained" musician. Apart from a handful of truly otherworldly individuals, most untrained musicians learn by listening and copying what others do (and have done before them) until they have sufficient chops to "be themselves".

What we don't think about is the fact they what they are copying and learning from is all based on the practises and techniques described by music theory. The key word here is describe. Theory isn't music, it is tool used to understand and describe music.

Bach, Haydn and Mozart were using I-IV-V progressions centuries before the untrained Robert Johnson or Jimi ever thought of using them. Did they just pull that sound out of the air? Absolutely not. they used what they heard other trained musicians doing and mastered it well enough to be recognized for it.

Can music theory be used to describe Hedrix or Robert Johnson. Absolutely, yes; just as easily as it can be used to describe Mozart, Stravinsky or Milton Babbitt.

Music theory is a tool to aid in the understanding of music. It is knowledge, and the more you know, the more you can do, and use of that knowledge is one of the reasons we like Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson, Kerry Minnear, Eddie Jobson, Martin Orford, Clive Nolan (the list goes on...) and other trained musicians better than the guy in Maroon Five or REO Speedwagon.

Edited by Trademark - March 15 2007 at 11:39