Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=124096 Printed Date: August 02 2025 at 19:43 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What Does The Term "Technical" Mean to You?Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Subject: What Does The Term "Technical" Mean to You?
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 04:35
Serious question! I'm very interested to see the responses here. I had a deep, deep discussion with a fellow musician, and it was crazy to see how different our definitions of the term was/is!
My definition of technical, in regards to music = busy, full bars of notes in unconventional patterns. That's it. From the drumming pattern, to the bass notes, to the guitar notes; most of what I enjoy musically for rock and prog rock has this commonality.
This is why for me prog, jazz, death metal/extreme tech prog etc. all really just blends together at the highest levels of abstraction. Gentle Giant is technical AF and I truly think this is why most don't like the sound or can't get into it. Go listen to Cogs in Cogs; the musicianship is undeniable but a first time listener doesn't have time to grasp the multiple layers happening simultaneously. Technical in this aspect doesn't mean convoluted, despite this being what I'd argue most people's connotation toward the term "technical".
IMHO I feel a lot of people have an undue negative bias against the term because when it's used I think people almost always imply that it's music which is too convoluted for it's own good, or for the sake of it. In a negative sense you can't really say that's incorrect. Many would look at technical as meaning convoluted for the sake of it, lacking melody and coherent structure, or egregious amounts of improvisation (whilst often claiming having nothing whatsoever to do with free jazz, lol).
Thoughts? Opinions? Views?
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Replies: Posted By: Mormegil
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 05:20
Good question.
Although I wouldn’t use “technical” when speaking about music that is considered “too convoluted”. If Classical music illustrates anything, it’s how multi-layered passages combine to make beautiful music. To some (many?), Classical seems convoluted. Clearly, for me, anyway, that’s not the case.
At least to my ears, “technical” means “mechanical” - music played well, by-the-numbers, near perfect - but without any soul, bereft of any feeling. To me, at least, that screams “technical”.
Just my 2¢.
------------- Welcome to the middle of the film.
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 05:54
Skilled musicians that can change rhythms, time signatures, and moods on demand. To do it well, would be subtle, not overly show off-ish. It doesn't have to be complicated to be technical.
Giant was mentioned. They use the "row row row your boat" technique a lot. Loved them instantly.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 05:58
It's a Jersey thing.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 06:07
a ballet for finger work, but not musical per se
------------- I'm guitarist and songwriter for the prog-related band Mother Bass. Find us at http://www.motherbass.com. I also enter stages throughout the Netherlands performing my poetry.
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 06:15
I've not really given that much thought. It's a good question.
I would say - if asked to consider this - music that is compositionally complex, utilizing technical musical approaches; counterpoint, polyphony, variable meter etc to positive effect, and is difficult to perform without a level of proficiency that enables the musician to apply those musical approaches....??
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Posted By: Spacegod87
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 07:16
I think being 'technical' is the ability to play an instrument at a highly advanced level and compose complex songs...but that doesn't automatically make a song good. It still has to move you in some way.
A robot could learn to create a song perfectly, but the song needs warmth as well.
I guess it's also subjective.
When I heard 'Cogs in Cogs' it moved me (like most GG songs do) but my brother just hears it as an "overly complicated, noodling mess" as he puts it....
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 07:21
I would try to explain my definition of the word, but it would be far too technical for you.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: wiz_d_kidd
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 07:33
I take a more literal definition: Technical = precise execution of difficult techniques when playing an instrument.
For example, Fripp's cross-picking in Fracture, or Manuel Pasquinelli's simultaneous poly-rhythms on drums with Sonar.
When the lead musician, or multiple musicians are playing with a high degree of technicality, and it becomes the overall dominant feature of the music, the overall piece gets branded with the "technical" label. In doing so, the music can sound mechanical and lack emotion or natural flow, which is why some people don't like it. I prefer it in small, measured doses.
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 07:39
Mormegil wrote:
...
At least to my ears, “technical” means “mechanical” - music played well, by-the-numbers, near perfect - but without any soul, bereft of any feeling. To me, at least, that screams “technical”.
...
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
...
My definition of technical, in regards to music = busy, full bars of notes in unconventional patterns. That's it. From the drumming pattern, to the bass notes, to the guitar notes; most of what I enjoy musically for rock and prog rock has this commonality.
...
Hi,
I think of "technical" as something very mechanical, relying (primarily) on one thing to keep it on track ... in most cases the snare drum ... there are very few drummers out there that can count to 3 without a snare drum!
To my ears, GG is rarely mechanical, specially when it has been said by GG that they never wrote anything down, and just played (at least in the early days for our ears!) ... and when one does that, I would imagine seeing any of the musicians take unexpected moments and do something different ... and GG did, along with a few other bands.
The bad side of "technical" is that you get a lot of bands that can only play music based on technical and mechanical terms, and this is one of my bits about someone like Gavin Harrison, who is a very good "technician" and well rehearsed, but in the end ... he sounds the same weather he is doing PT, the other PT or KC.
My take on a good "modern" drummer runs into someone like Steve Gadd, who can drum out of nothing and just words ... and hearing him with Kate Bush, in a song that is not a song format, and he's just fine and adds the touches necessary to accentuate her words and feelings ... he didn't need the snare drum to keep time!
A "technical" drummer, is not, for my tastes, a good drummer ... because more often than not, the music itself is not the important thing ... keeping time is! AND THAT MEANS THE MUSIC IS TIED DOWN, AND CAN'T FLOAT AWAY WITH US!
PS: This is an issue with rock'n'roll in general ... where the "beat" is more important than the rest of the music, but if you look at the history of songs, it is the ones that broke the patterns that are best remembered, unless you get some of the BS fans around. "BEAT" music is not all that MUSIC is about ... and this is the greatest problem with rock'n'roll and a styled top ten situation.
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 10:37
Simply put...
Executed with perfection.
------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music
Posted By: Awesoreno
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 11:44
Interesting that you sort of use "technical" as an umbrella term. I think that makes sense, but there are types of technicality, including playing vs. composition. Zappa often employs both in his writing, creating really difficult lines, but also creating dense layers.
You mention GG, and if you really listen to each part they play individually, it's often not actually that complicated or difficult to play. It's just a lot of layering and polyphony, so it sounds more complicated together. But just because playing your individual line is relatively easy doesn't mean it isn't hard to play once you all get together. And it's even MORE difficult to COMPOSE. Which, to me, is where the technicality of their music lies.
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 12:37
Awesoreno wrote:
Interesting that you sort of use "technical" as an umbrella term. I think that makes sense, but there are types of technicality, including playing vs. composition. Zappa often employs both in his writing, creating really difficult lines, but also creating dense layers.
...
Hi,
And I tend to think that we underestimate FZ's compositional skills and his learning from classical music in layering things ... which obviously has to be done when you are talking 50 or more instruments ... you don't have 20 play the guitar, 20 play the bass ... and other bizarre combinations ... (now that would be fun!!!) ... and it makes the music seem more technical, but it would be more "technical" in FZ's mind as you say to be able to actually visualize it first ... and then figure out a way to make it work, and both of us can not say that it "did not work".
Compared to almost all rock bands out there, specially the more pop oriented ones including the (so-called) progressive (all song formats!), I would say that FZ and GG were quite technical ... and the majority of other bands just mechanical high school players (in general!) that can not keep time without a snare drum telling them the time!
The thing that is sad, is seeing folks confuse "layers" with difficulty and technicality ... which is not quite right ... if the "layers" is only playing a melody to support everything else ... that's not even technical ... that's would be poor composing ... the layers are not actually there since they are playing the same thing! You can see a lot of this with bands that have an orchestra with them, when the orchestra is just a backup for their main melodies, nothing else. And the guitarist can plop a solo over that melody ... wow ... what's so technical about that thought? The playing? (... that's a different story altogether!)
Technical ... the playing itself ... well, you have to go to some real masters of their instrument ... do you call John McLaughlin "technical" in his playing? ... wait a minute ... he does improvisations with a lot of different musicians, and those are not necessarily "technical" because he has to listen and pay attention to what is being done and then translate to what he is doing to add to the piece. I suppose that thinking can be "technical" but in the end, the improvisation is not technical UNLESS it is started by a riff ... which is the rock music style ... they are afraid of free forming because the drummer has no idea how NOT TO COUNT!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 21:40
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
Serious question! I'm very interested to see the responses here. I had a deep, deep discussion with a fellow musician, and it was crazy to see how different our definitions of the term was/is!
My definition of technical, in regards to music = busy, full bars of notes in unconventional patterns. That's it. From the drumming pattern, to the bass notes, to the guitar notes; most of what I enjoy musically for rock and prog rock has this commonality.
This is why for me prog, jazz, death metal/extreme tech prog etc. all really just blends together at the highest levels of abstraction. Gentle Giant is technical AF and I truly think this is why most don't like the sound or can't get into it. Go listen to Cogs in Cogs; the musicianship is undeniable but a first time listener doesn't have time to grasp the multiple layers happening simultaneously. Technical in this aspect doesn't mean convoluted, despite this being what I'd argue most people's connotation toward the term "technical".
IMHO I feel a lot of people have an undue negative bias against the term because when it's used I think people almost always imply that it's music which is too convoluted for it's own good, or for the sake of it. In a negative sense you can't really say that's incorrect. Many would look at technical as meaning convoluted for the sake of it, lacking melody and coherent structure, or egregious amounts of improvisation (whilst often claiming having nothing whatsoever to do with free jazz, lol).
Thoughts? Opinions? Views?
I would say, yes, basically technical means something that cannot be easily assimilated at first glance. Prog lovers love to pride themselves on their ability to grapple with music that is indeed more complex than chart topping rock and pop. But music can often be complex and still have a hook to easily latch onto. Beethoven's symphonies have memorable motifs to hold onto. Likewise, Genesis' long pieces have memorable vocal hooks sung a good deal better than Derek Shulman of GG.
But with GG, yes, at first glance, the music can even be downright confusing and if you don't hang in there for a few more listens, you won't be able to work out the patterns where they start to make sense. I KNOW because that was my exact experience with the first GG track I heard, Experience. I was a neophyte to prog then and gave up. A few years later, I heard a different track, probably Runaway, and the music clicked. And after that, it was like a flood. I had no problem anymore once I understood the underlying 'logic' behind the construction of their music. It just happens to be a more unconventional logic than Yes or Genesis (though some of Yes' material on Relayer compares).
The reaction of music lovers to 'technical' music is somewhat akin to an audience at a stand up comic's event where the comic's jokes are too witty for them. For eg, David Letterman riffing on the Yma Dream story with his Oprah-Uma gag at the Oscars fell flat but that wasn't necessarily his fault. It probably amused him that this storied audience was unaware of a classic story that has been dramatized successfully by both Ann Bancroft and Christine Baranski. On similar lines, when a music lover finds they are unable to 'get' a composition, their natural instinct is to blame the composer and dub the music as too technical (which is short for 'trying too hard to be intelligent/pretentious). I am not exempting myself from this, I have done this in the past too.
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 23 2020 at 23:29
Grumpyprogfan wrote:
Giant was mentioned. They use the "row row row your boat" technique a lot. Loved them instantly.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you speaking about how they sing in "rounds" like a choir, ala Knots, etc.? Amazing band top 3 for me.
friso wrote:
a ballet for finger work, but not musical per se
I like this description! Lots of noise but not much actually happening.
The Dark Elf wrote:
I would try to explain my definition of the word, but it would be far too technical for you.
High level of note syncopation at alternating tempos and time signatures which may or may not produce sound vectors pleasant to the listener, and all within a X/mi/km radius?
Awesoreno wrote:
Interesting that you sort of use "technical" as an umbrella term. I think that makes sense, but there are types of technicality, including playing vs. composition. Zappa often employs both in his writing, creating really difficult lines, but also creating dense layers.
You mention GG, and if you really listen to each part they play individually, it's often not actually that complicated or difficult to play. It's just a lot of layering and polyphony, so it sounds more complicated together. But just because playing your individual line is relatively easy doesn't mean it isn't hard to play once you all get together. And it's even MORE difficult to COMPOSE. Which, to me, is where the technicality of their music lies.
Exactly how Gorguts compiled Obscura; layering the parts creates the complexity, not the parts themselves. Maps of song structure on paper like a drawing but everyone knows their part it's the arrangement that becomes the work afterwards!
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: Awesoreno
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 00:21
^ Row boat could be referring to a "round," though they usually go much farther than that. Tracks like Knots and Design have vocal polyphony, with On Reflection almost verging on fugue territory.
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 00:41
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 00:47
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 00:48
'Technical' has usually been meant to call out bands who have too much emphasis on the musicianship and not on the music. By extension this means the music is also devoid of emotion and feeling.
ELP - Technical
Colosseum II - Very technical (anything within fusion really)
Genesis - Non Technical
Camel - Non technical
VDGG - Non technical
but of course this is gross generalising and says nothing about a band like the aforementioned Gentle Giant.
Also some bands went 'technical' for a while like Yes did on Relayer for instance. 'hard edged technicality' was a phrase that even being used in the seventies. Yes were veering towards the fusion scene so its easy to see the connection.
Personally I like a balance but there is no specific rule although I find a lot of fusion a turn off.
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 00:54
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Aw come on, we need more sub genre diffusion!
I agree with the initially quoted statement, however; Relayer is technical music IMHO. Sound Chaser even more so!
Awesoreno wrote:
^ Row boat could be referring to a "round," though they usually go much farther than that. Tracks like Knots and Design have vocal polyphony, with On Reflection almost verging on fugue territory.
Ok, gotcha, and I agree then!
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 01:47
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 01:55
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
As for technical metal, it's just technical death metal. For any metal that is technical, people just call it progressive metal. Something like Zero Hour.
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 02:03
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
As for technical metal, it's just technical death metal. For any metal that is technical, people just call it progressive metal. Something like Zero Hour.
Cynic Focus is the closest thing still, to me, to technical metal. There are death growls and vocals, but it's built prominently on the robot vocoder vocals. Crazy riffing almost constantly.
Great discussion in this thread, keep it going!
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 02:11
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 02:13
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
thank you for the insult, it was predictable...
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 02:18
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
thank you for the insult, it was predictable...
It's not an insult, I'm afraid it's just a fact. Not even on the Internet you say? https://www.last.fm/tag/technical+rock" rel="nofollow - Technical rock music
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 02:31
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
thank you for the insult, it was predictable...
It's not an insult, I'm afraid it's just a fact. Not even on the Internet you say? https://www.last.fm/tag/technical+rock" rel="nofollow - Technical rock music
Yeah, I don't use last.fm exactly because they got their own names for genres and subgenres.
They call Spastik Ink technical rock. I giggled...
Paul Gilbert is technical rock? I've seen this kind of music called "instrumental" or "shred". But never like that.
So every time a musician plays competently, with some skill, it becomes technical rock, right?
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 02:35
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
thank you for the insult, it was predictable...
It's not an insult, I'm afraid it's just a fact. Not even on the Internet you say? https://www.last.fm/tag/technical+rock" rel="nofollow - Technical rock music
I'm assuming math rock and technical rock are interchangeable terms?
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 03:07
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
thank you for the insult, it was predictable...
It's not an insult, I'm afraid it's just a fact. Not even on the Internet you say? https://www.last.fm/tag/technical+rock" rel="nofollow - Technical rock music
Yeah, I don't use last.fm exactly because they got their own names for genres and subgenres.
Oh really? Well, this would be regarding a proof that you haven't read enough before the Internet either:
"Wakeman brought a whole cannonry of keyboard tricks - what caused new comparisons to Keith Emerson - and took Yes even deeper into the realm of what became known as "flash" or technical rock." - from an article about Yes in The Illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock, 1976.
"Leading creators of technical rock" - from NME journalist Nick Logan's Emerson Lake & Palmer article, the same book.
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 03:10
Boboulo wrote:
"Wakeman brought a whole cannonry of keyboard tricks - what caused new comparisons to Keith Emerson - and took Yes even deeper into the realm of what became known as "flash" or technical rock." - from an article about Yes in The Illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock, 1976.
"Leading creators of technical rock" - from NME journalist Nick Logan's Emerson Lake & Palmer article, the same book.
I've got that book, it's interesting that they don't use the term progressive rock for any of Yes, Genesis, ELP or similar bands. I'm pretty sure nobody referred to Yes as playing "technical rock" at the time however.
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 03:20
chopper wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
"Wakeman brought a whole cannonry of keyboard tricks - what caused new comparisons to Keith Emerson - and took Yes even deeper into the realm of what became known as "flash" or technical rock." - from an article about Yes in The Illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock, 1976.
"Leading creators of technical rock" - from NME journalist Nick Logan's Emerson Lake & Palmer article, the same book.
I've got that book, it's interesting that they don't use the term progressive rock for any of Yes, Genesis, ELP or similar bands.
They have used the term “progressive rock” in the Family article.
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 03:27
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
thank you for the insult, it was predictable...
It's not an insult, I'm afraid it's just a fact. Not even on the Internet you say? https://www.last.fm/tag/technical+rock" rel="nofollow - Technical rock music
Yeah, I don't use last.fm exactly because they got their own names for genres and subgenres.
Oh really? Well, this would be regarding a proof that you haven't read enough before the Internet either:
"Wakeman brought a whole cannonry of keyboard tricks - what caused new comparisons to Keith Emerson - and took Yes even deeper into the realm of what became known as "flash" or technical rock." - from an article about Yes in The Illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock, 1976.
"Leading creators of technical rock" - from NME journalist Nick Logan's Emerson Lake & Palmer article, the same book.
do you have these quotes prepared?
It's strange why the famous NME were not using a term like "progressive", but "flash" and "technical". "Flash" sounds pejorative, but hey, wasn't this the magazine that constantly mocked progressive rock artists?
If the word "technical" is used just as an adjective that describes the music, then, ok, fine, it can be a little helpful, but if "technical rock" is a music genre, then it's confusing because it can be a lot of things, it's too wide, it does not help in any way.
Rush, Saga, Toto, Steely Dan, Joe Satriani, were all technical, all sounded different. So "technical rock" as music genre does not work, makes little sense to me.
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 05:15
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
For example, Yes' "Relayer" was considered as a "technical rock" album back then. Is that a pejorative term? Well, for someone who doesn't like it, probably yes. Not for me.
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean that the term wasn't in use.The term isn't even completely extinct because we have "technical metal" now.
excuse my apparent arrogance, but I haven't heard it because I've never seen it used, not in magazines I read in the past, not on the internet.
You haven't read enough.
thank you for the insult, it was predictable...
It's not an insult, I'm afraid it's just a fact. Not even on the Internet you say? https://www.last.fm/tag/technical+rock" rel="nofollow - Technical rock music
I'm assuming math rock and technical rock are interchangeable terms?
It may be, as there are some math-rock bands that are tagged as "technical rock" as well. For example, FeatherWolf:
"Featherdreamzzz" (2017)
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 05:20
I've never heard of Technical Rock, but I have heard of a "Technical" military pick-up truck with a machine gun mounted in the back.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 05:23
Omg.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 05:42
I could assume that that is Paul The Stealth Jihadist in the back of that truck, but the one with the pot with vegetables on the head would be more stealthy.
By the way, I have heard of technical rock climbing, but more often rock climbing techniques.
As for technical music, I see it as music that takes a high level of technique/skill to create, and commonly those skills would have been developed with formal studies and much discipline. It can imply "soulless"/ more intellectual than emotional/ more formal than felt and as inorganic. The technicality will be found both in the musicianship and in the compositional skills. Much academic music could be called technical music. It can mean any music that takes a high level of skill to play and compose.
------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 06:41
I've heard of Tech Metal (or Technical Death Metal), but without having listened to it, I have a strong feeling Tech Metal wouldn't appeal to me at all. Symphonic Metal appeals more to my eclectic tastes, and I like some Progressive Metal too on occasion, especially Ayreon and Dream Theater.
On the subject of the Yes: Relayer album, it no doubt displays a high level of technical ability, but I've never heard it referred to as "Technical Rock" before.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 07:51
Psychedelic Paul wrote:
I've heard of Tech Metal (or Technical Death Metal), but without having listened to it, I have a strong feeling Tech Metal wouldn't appeal to me at all. Symphonic Metal appeals more to my eclectic tastes, and I like some Progressive Metal too on occasion, especially Ayreon and Dream Theater.
On the subject of the Yes: Relayer album, it no doubt displays a high level of technical ability, but I've never heard it referred to as "Technical Rock" before.
The correct term is indeed technical death metal. I have never heard 'just' technical metal. Maybe magazines like NME use such non-standard terms but I was a contributor to metal archives for quite a while and interacted a lot with the mods there and I don't remember hearing just technical metal. Nor did I ever hear that term from my metalhead friends. I mean, a metal sub genre name by default has to be thrash metal/power metal/death metal/black metal and then you add prefixes like technical/progressive/brutal.
I have also never heard the term technical 'rock' but svetty is free to have his NME references and gloat over it. Can't be bothered to argue with a spam generator.
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 07:59
This thread has technically gone off the deep end. When Svetonio starts quoting stuff from an obscure website and a quote or two from a review, trying to make "technical rock" an actual genre, it is time to close up shop. When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
Technical rock does not have a Wiki page. Technical rock does not have any other direct references. Technical rock does not exist as a genre. To prove my point, type in "tech metal"...I get a Wiki page and over 1.8 million results.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 08:17
Logan wrote:
As for technical music, I see it as music that takes a high level of technique/skill to create, and commonly those skills would have been developed with formal studies and much discipline. It can imply "soulless"/ more intellectual than emotional/ more formal than felt and as inorganic. The technicality will be found both in the musicianship and in the compositional skills. Much academic music could be called technical music. It can mean any music that takes a high level of skill to play and compose.
This.
I think we may be confusing something that is technical to play (for me that's anything that doesn't use G, C and D chords) with a supposed genre of rock/metal.
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 08:38
Logan wrote:
I could assume that that is Paul The Stealth Jihadist in the back of that truck, but the one with the pot with vegetables on the head would be more stealthy.
A "Technical" is the vehicle of choice whenever a Jihadi needs to take a trip down to the grocery store in downtown Timbuktu.
Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 09:25
when I think of technical I think live music---you can make anything sound perfect in a studio--Wakeman is a perfect technical guy so is Banks live---Emerson and Moraz not as perfect---I remember Sting making a comment that Genesis never makes a technical mistake live.
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 10:25
rogerthat wrote:
The correct term is indeed technical death metal. I have never heard 'just' technical metal.
Maybe Bandcamp will help you to refresh your memory: https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-metal" rel="nofollow - technical metal
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 10:36
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Posted By: progaardvark
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 13:58
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
There are more albums on Bandcamp tagged poop rock:
------------- ---------- i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 14:54
twosteves wrote:
I remember Sting making a comment that Genesis never makes a technical mistake live.
Which is why they're performances often lacked soul.
'Technical' to me would be an emphasis on a cerebral approach to music, using the brain more than the spirit. Nothing wrong with that at all, I love technical music. But the human factor, the room for instinct and mistake-making, is vital to something like rock or jazz. The best guitar players exhibit both, e.g. Jeff Beck, McLaughlin, Page, Hendrix, Uli Roth, EVH, Randy Rhoads, SRV, Holdsworth, etc.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 16:24
Technical means to me technological without olog. Do you know olog? A very advanced robot type.
Seriously though, technical means what it says. As for me, it should connote that, "that" technicality has some special aspects; like stuff done by utilizing and mastering effective techniques, which are hard to have down cold and require some significant talent. Otherwise, every kind of playing and singing can be labelled as "technical"; and it would be pointlelss to state, let alone coin/label that. Also, some musicians have virtually unique techniques. I personally wouldn't call their music "technical", unless their music is focused on reflecting the technical side over the melodic, emotional etc. quality. In other words, if one is not extravagantly showcasing his/her technical prowess, I wouldn't prefer to call their music technical, albeit except for mentioning while analyzing the music's constituents/elements.
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 18:01
progaardvark wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
There are more albums on Bandcamp tagged poop rock:
Actually, it's more hilarious than that -- there are less than nine. If you look at the 9 selections, 5 of them are by the same band. That's not a genre, that's a Thursday open mic night with no cover charge.
Once again, Svetonio bringing ramen noodles to a gun fight. But I am sure Svetty has all the poop rock albums in his collection.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 18:59
progaardvark wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
Actually, I don't deny that the term is (almost) extinct.However, the term was in use in the 70's, and here and there the tag "technical" is used even today.
From Progarchives:
"1980 is a technical prog metal band from France.
Their music is entirely instrumental, and displays a wide array of
influences from bands such as Meshuggah" https://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3876" rel="nofollow - link
1980 - "Amicalement Votre" (2007)
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 19:09
The Dark Elf wrote:
progaardvark wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
There are more albums on Bandcamp tagged poop rock:
Actually, it's more hilarious than that -- there are less than nine. If you look at the 9 selections, 5 of them are by the same band. That's not a genre, that's a Thursday open mic night with no cover charge.
Once again, Svetonio bringing ramen noodles to a gun fight. But I am sure Svetty has all the poop rock albums in his collection.
Boboulo wrote:
Actually, I don't deny that the term is (almost) extinct.However, the term was in use in the 70's, and here and there the tag "technical" is used even today.
From Progarchives: "1980 is a technical prog metal band from France. Their music is entirely instrumental, and displays a wide array of influences from bands such as Meshuggah" https://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3876" rel="nofollow - link
Now it's suddenly changed to "technical prog metal"? You can't even stay on topic. Tech/Extreme Prog Metal is a progressive rock music sub-genre on PA. Like Meshuggah.
Give it up, Babaloo.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 19:38
Oh and I almost forgot to mention this album-title that brilliantly describes music.
Black Sabbath - "Gypsy" (1976)
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 20:11
Boboulo wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
The correct term is indeed technical death metal. I have never heard 'just' technical metal.
Maybe Bandcamp will help you to refresh your memory: https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-metal" rel="nofollow - technical metal
Dude, that's a TAG. A TAG. T-A-G. Not a genre. And that tag is one of multiple tags given to bands so it has zero meaning.
Take a look at one of the bands tagged as technical metal, Pangaea.
They describe themselves as progressive metal. Are you going to go to Wisconsin to tell them they are wrong and don't know sh*t? Yes, you would, because you are svetty the uber moron.
Now look at the tags there: death metal, metal, metalcore, technical metal, djent, heavy metal, progressive metal, technical death metal, Wisconsin.
Yeah, I am sure Wisconsin is a genre because bandcamp tagged this band with Wisconsin.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 20:14
Boboulo wrote:
progaardvark wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
Actually, I don't deny that the term is (almost) extinct.However, the term was in use in the 70's, and here and there the tag "technical" is used even today.
From Progarchives:
"1980 is a technical prog metal band from France.
Their music is entirely instrumental, and displays a wide array of
influences from bands such as Meshuggah" https://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3876" rel="nofollow - link
1980 - "Amicalement Votre" (2007)
Moron, moron, moron! Nobody said technical is not used as a prefix in metal genres. I literally said that in the post you quoted without, as usual, reading it. The correct usage, if you bothered to understand, is always technical progressive metal or technical death metal. Metal is the umbrella term, like rock. Death/progressive/power/black/thrash describe the sub genre. Technical is simply an additional prefix. You could have technical death metal (Cryptopsy) or brutal death metal (Suffocation) or old school death metal (Dismember). But we don't say technical metal. Again, why don't you get out there into the real world, go to a metal concert and ask folks what is technical metal? They will immediately ask you whether you mean technical death metal or something else? Just technical metal by itself is a useless term.
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 20:15
Boboulo wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot to mention this album-title that brilliantly describes music.
You do realize the album title "Technical Ecstasy" has nothing at all to do with the music, right? It was about the cover, or as Ozzy Osbourne put it, "two robots screwing on an escalator".
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 20:19
The Dark Elf wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot to mention this album-title that brilliantly describes music.
You do realize the album title "Technical Ecstasy" has nothing at all to do with the music, right? It was about the cover, or as Ozzy Osbourne put it, "two robots screwing on an escalator".
All fun and games when the big ego self-destructs and owns himself due to his refusal to simply concede and move on.
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 20:35
rogerthat wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
progaardvark wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
Actually, I don't deny that the term is (almost) extinct.However, the term was in use in the 70's, and here and there the tag "technical" is used even today.
From Progarchives:
"1980 is a technical prog metal band from France.
Their music is entirely instrumental, and displays a wide array of
influences from bands such as Meshuggah" https://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3876" rel="nofollow - link
1980 - "Amicalement Votre" (2007)
Moron, moron, moron! Nobody said technical is not used as a prefix in metal genres. I literally said that in the post you quoted without, as usual, reading it. The correct usage, if you bothered to understand, is always technical progressive metal or technical death metal. Metal is the umbrella term, like rock. Death/progressive/power/black/thrash describe the sub genre. Technical is simply an additional prefix. You could have technical death metal (Cryptopsy) or brutal death metal (Suffocation) or old school death metal (Dismember). But we don't say technical metal. Again, why don't you get out there into the real world, go to a metal concert and ask folks what is technical metal? They will immediately ask you whether you mean technical death metal or something else? Just technical metal by itself is a useless term.
Holy crap! What a scandal! Poor Sophie has missed the word "death"!
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 20:44
Boboulo wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
progaardvark wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
Actually, I don't deny that the term is (almost) extinct.However, the term was in use in the 70's, and here and there the tag "technical" is used even today.
From Progarchives:
"1980 is a technical prog metal band from France.
Their music is entirely instrumental, and displays a wide array of
influences from bands such as Meshuggah" https://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3876" rel="nofollow - link
1980 - "Amicalement Votre" (2007)
Moron, moron, moron! Nobody said technical is not used as a prefix in metal genres. I literally said that in the post you quoted without, as usual, reading it. The correct usage, if you bothered to understand, is always technical progressive metal or technical death metal. Metal is the umbrella term, like rock. Death/progressive/power/black/thrash describe the sub genre. Technical is simply an additional prefix. You could have technical death metal (Cryptopsy) or brutal death metal (Suffocation) or old school death metal (Dismember). But we don't say technical metal. Again, why don't you get out there into the real world, go to a metal concert and ask folks what is technical metal? They will immediately ask you whether you mean technical death metal or something else? Just technical metal by itself is a useless term.
Holy crap! What a scandal! Poor Sophie has missed the word "death"!
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 20:58
rogerthat wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
progaardvark wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
When you Google "technical rock" you get one direct reference (@last.fm). That's it. That's all you get.
omfg!
https://bandcamp.com/tag/technical-rock" rel="nofollow - technical rock
Believe it or not, but that actually doesn't help your cause. There are only nine albums on Bandcamp with that tag. There are over five millions albums on Bandcamp.
Actually, I don't deny that the term is (almost) extinct.However, the term was in use in the 70's, and here and there the tag "technical" is used even today.
From Progarchives:
"1980 is a technical prog metal band from France.
Their music is entirely instrumental, and displays a wide array of
influences from bands such as Meshuggah" https://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3876" rel="nofollow - link
1980 - "Amicalement Votre" (2007)
Moron, moron, moron! Nobody said technical is not used as a prefix in metal genres. I literally said that in the post you quoted without, as usual, reading it. The correct usage, if you bothered to understand, is always technical progressive metal or technical death metal. Metal is the umbrella term, like rock. Death/progressive/power/black/thrash describe the sub genre. Technical is simply an additional prefix. You could have technical death metal (Cryptopsy) or brutal death metal (Suffocation) or old school death metal (Dismember). But we don't say technical metal. Again, why don't you get out there into the real world, go to a metal concert and ask folks what is technical metal? They will immediately ask you whether you mean technical death metal or something else? Just technical metal by itself is a useless term.
Holy crap! What a scandal! Poor Sophie has missed the word "death"!
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 21:08
For me technical means a focus on the skills involved with the instrument and not so much the feel or melodic content. Imo, Al Di Meola is an example of a technical player.
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 21:24
The Dark Elf wrote:
Boboulo wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot to mention this album-title that brilliantly describes music.
You do realize the album title "Technical Ecstasy" has nothing at all to do with the music, right? It was about the cover, or as Ozzy Osbourne put it, "two robots screwing on an escalator".
I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you again.That illustration was created after the album title.
The cover art was designed by Hipgnosis. Osbourne once described it as "two robots screwing on an escalator". Hipgnosis' Storm Thorgerson, who had been assisted by graphic designer George Hardie, discussed the cover with Zoom magazine in 1979: "We're very fond of that cover. From the title of the piece, Technical Ecstasy, I thought of something ecstatic rather than something technical, and I immediately thought of ecstasy in sexual terms: some sort of mechanical copulation, which would be tricky to do.
***
In 1992, Iommi admitted to Guitar World: "Black Sabbath fans generally don't like much of Technical Ecstasy. It was really a no-win situation for us. If we had stayed the same, people would have said we were still doing the same old stuff. So we tried to get a little more technical, and it just didn’t work out very well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Ecstasy" rel="nofollow - Technical Ecstasy - Wikipedia
edit: Still my favourite Sabbath's record, though.
Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: September 24 2020 at 21:46
Atavachron wrote:
twosteves wrote:
I remember Sting making a comment that Genesis never makes a technical mistake live.
Which is why they're performances often lacked soul.
'Technical' to me would be an emphasis on a cerebral approach to music, using the brain more than the spirit. Nothing wrong with that at all, I love technical music. But the human factor, the room for instinct and mistake-making, is vital to something like rock or jazz. The best guitar players exhibit both, e.g. Jeff Beck, McLaughlin, Page, Hendrix, Uli Roth, EVH, Randy Rhoads, SRV, Holdsworth, etc.
you can be technically great and still play with soul and feeling---certainly genesis has done that---with the hairs standing on the back of your neck....like a lot of the guitarists you mentioned but not all of them...funny I always thought Howe was amazing but not technically perfect---where as Rabin is technically perfect but doesn't do much for me.
Posted By: Boboulo
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 00:19
richardh wrote:
'Technical' has usually been meant to call out bands who have too much emphasis on the musicianship and not on the music. By extension this means the music is also devoid of emotion and feeling.
ELP - Technical
Colosseum II - Very technical (anything within fusion really)
Genesis - Non Technical
Camel - Non technical
VDGG - Non technical
but of course this is gross generalising and says nothing about a band like the aforementioned Gentle Giant.
Also some bands went 'technical' for a while like Yes did on Relayer for instance. 'hard edged technicality' was a phrase that even being used in the seventies. Yes were veering towards the fusion scene so its easy to see the connection.
Personally I like a balance but there is no specific rule although I find a lot of fusion a turn off.
I'd agree.Also, "technical" as a tag doesn't mean only that musicians play technically perfect (i.e. no one considers Genesis technically non-superior even though they weren't "technical", as you have already pointed out), but that the focus is on technical virtuosity which creates certain soundscapes. For example, let's compare Soft Machine and Return to Forever; both were jazz-rock. Nobody normal will say that Soft Machine on e.g."Six" (1973) are technically mediocre nor that they have no skills, but if we compare them with Return to Forever, Soft Machinearen't "technical" on "Six", while Return to Forever are undoubtedly "technical" on e.g. "Where Have I Known You Before" the album (1974). Well, someone doesn't like it; personally, I always loved it.
Return to Forever - "Vulcan Worlds" (1974)
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 00:33
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
For me technical means a focus on the skills involved with the instrument and not so much the feel or melodic content. Imo, Al Di Meola is an example of a technical player.
Another great quote here, I agree! Luc Lemay from Gorguts is the most technical guitar player that still manages to involve feel, emotion, mood, etc. Gorguts rules, so doesn't Di Meola!
chopper wrote:
Logan wrote:
As for technical music, I see it as music that takes a high level of technique/skill to create, and commonly those skills would have been developed with formal studies and much discipline. It can imply "soulless"/ more intellectual than emotional/ more formal than felt and as inorganic. The technicality will be found both in the musicianship and in the compositional skills. Much academic music could be called technical music. It can mean any music that takes a high level of skill to play and compose.
This.
I think we may be confusing something that is technical to play (for me that's anything that doesn't use G, C and D chords) with a supposed genre of rock/metal.
Great quote(s) here, I agree with this.
rogerthat wrote:
Psychedelic Paul wrote:
I've heard of Tech Metal (or Technical Death Metal), but without having listened to it, I have a strong feeling Tech Metal wouldn't appeal to me at all. Symphonic Metal appeals more to my eclectic tastes, and I like some Progressive Metal too on occasion, especially Ayreon and Dream Theater.
On the subject of the Yes: Relayer album, it no doubt displays a high level of technical ability, but I've never heard it referred to as "Technical Rock" before.
The correct term is indeed technical death metal. I have never heard 'just' technical metal. Maybe magazines like NME use such non-standard terms but I was a contributor to metal archives for quite a while and interacted a lot with the mods there and I don't remember hearing just technical metal. Nor did I ever hear that term from my metalhead friends. I mean, a metal sub genre name by default has to be thrash metal/power metal/death metal/black metal and then you add prefixes like technical/progressive/brutal.
I have also never heard the term technical 'rock' but svetty is free to have his NME references and gloat over it. Can't be bothered to argue with a spam generator.
Atheist were simply called technical metal back in the day. I wouldn't call their album Elements death metal, despite it sounding similar to bands I would give that title. They've always had more of a fusion and thrash feel that causes death metal fans to just label them tech metal.thrash. It's asinine. Exactly why I made this thread lol. Any band that doesn't espouse over the top death and gore lyrics were typically dropped of the death metal title, despite having exactly the same musical characteristics. They were used interchangeably.
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 04:46
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
Atheist were simply called technical metal back in the day. I wouldn't call their album Elements death metal, despite it sounding similar to bands I would give that title. They've always had more of a fusion and thrash feel that causes death metal fans to just label them tech metal.thrash. It's asinine. Exactly why I made this thread lol. Any band that doesn't espouse over the top death and gore lyrics were typically dropped of the death metal title, despite having exactly the same musical characteristics. They were used interchangeably.
Atheist weren't called just technical metal, it was always either death metal or technical death metal. I agree that they are difficult to classify which is also what makes them a one-off in any event. They don't prove that there was this big burgeoning genre called technical metal. It was always tech death/tech thrash. Tech death expanded into prog death at some point. Atheist, like Cynic, have also been called progressive death metal. I believe both bands are on PA which is apt.
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 04:59
rogerthat wrote:
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
Atheist were simply called technical metal back in the day. I wouldn't call their album Elements death metal, despite it sounding similar to bands I would give that title. They've always had more of a fusion and thrash feel that causes death metal fans to just label them tech metal.thrash. It's asinine. Exactly why I made this thread lol. Any band that doesn't espouse over the top death and gore lyrics were typically dropped of the death metal title, despite having exactly the same musical characteristics. They were used interchangeably.
Atheist weren't called just technical metal, it was always either death metal or technical death metal. I agree that they are difficult to classify which is also what makes them a one-off in any event. They don't prove that there was this big burgeoning genre called technical metal. It was always tech death/tech thrash. Tech death expanded into prog death at some point. Atheist, like Cynic, have also been called progressive death metal. I believe both bands are on PA which is apt.
Not arguing that point at all. My point was ironically everyone is going to call it a different thing. I've heard Kelly himself call the band Atheist technical metal, flat out. I met him in person and he just called them technical metal. A user above has a technical rock link with bands I was saying I'd call math. It's interesting to see how quickly the thread devolved from people explaining their take on it to defending source X, Y, Z definition OF it as if there is objectivity (not implying you're doing so), lol.
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 06:23
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
Atheist were simply called technical metal back in the day. I wouldn't call their album Elements death metal, despite it sounding similar to bands I would give that title. They've always had more of a fusion and thrash feel that causes death metal fans to just label them tech metal.thrash. It's asinine. Exactly why I made this thread lol. Any band that doesn't espouse over the top death and gore lyrics were typically dropped of the death metal title, despite having exactly the same musical characteristics. They were used interchangeably.
Atheist weren't called just technical metal, it was always either death metal or technical death metal. I agree that they are difficult to classify which is also what makes them a one-off in any event. They don't prove that there was this big burgeoning genre called technical metal. It was always tech death/tech thrash. Tech death expanded into prog death at some point. Atheist, like Cynic, have also been called progressive death metal. I believe both bands are on PA which is apt.
Not arguing that point at all. My point was ironically everyone is going to call it a different thing. I've heard Kelly himself call the band Atheist technical metal, flat out. I met him in person and he just called them technical metal. A user above has a technical rock link with bands I was saying I'd call math. It's interesting to see how quickly the thread devolved from people explaining their take on it to defending source X, Y, Z definition OF it as if there is objectivity (not implying you're doing so), lol.
The thread devolved in this way because one poster decided to make the thread all about himself. It is unfortunate this thread caught his attention but what can we do. I would ordinarily give a lot more leeway on genre names. I am personally not very much hung up on it and if anything, when I was really into metal, the plethora of sub classifications used to bore the hell out of me. However, with svetty, I am not prepared to yield an inch. And I can see that others like Dark Elf have the same attitude to him. Now I wonder why that would be.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 06:35
A friend of mine once said that if the music sounds technical, then it is. I'll go with that.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 07:23
richardh wrote:
'Technical' has usually been meant to call out bands who have too much emphasis on the musicianship and not on the music. By extension this means the music is also devoid of emotion and feeling.
ELP - Technical
Colosseum II - Very technical (anything within fusion really)
Genesis - Non Technical
Camel - Non technical
VDGG - Non technical
...
Hi,
"... too much emphasis on musicianship and not the music ... " is probably one of my biggest things in trying to help define some of the bands that are "classified" as "progressive" and ... probably should not be ... but as you say later, it is a tough line to draw, regardless.
I'm not sure that it would mean that the music is "devoid" of emotion, and I would mention John McLaughlin real quick ... and then add Jaco to the mix ... they do what they are good at and somehow it seems the right time ... I don't think I have heard many folks complain about "too many notes" on Jaco like a King might have done to Mozart!
One last bit ... ELP - Technical ... I seriously doubt, that ELP would be as good as they were without being "technical", since a hack drummer (beginner) would have destroyed half the material with the same beat and snare drum timing hit. Their music, for the most part, was about "the accent of the words and its meaning ... " (in my words) and we do not see this, and turn back to think of it as just another song ... "don't tell me lies ... boom ... booommm ... is not something that a modern drummer can even do right, because there is no singer out there that is doing theatrical material with the right amount of emotion ... most of them think that the musicianship and the lyrics will carry on the "theatrical" and :imaginary" content of the music, which is the biggest and greatest fallacy in film and theater ... and it is even more so in rock music, since so many bands are lazy and cheap!
Remember that at the time, when Greg Lake was doing his thing, that theater was having a MASSIVE amount of experimentation and its impression was about the way it was delivered and how it could be more effective than a standard "reading" or "singing" ... and this is not something that most folks today can relate to, specially in a commercially defined place, that so much of the "progressive" material is a part of.
Greg was not the only one ... you can look at David Bowie doing the same thing (albeit we might say a bit differently), and Peter Hammill, and Christian Decamps (Ange), Francesco di Giacomo (Banco), all of whom were doing "their thing" which was a lot more theatrical than just a pop song ... whose theatrics tend to be cheap and an attempt to excite the young girls from the stage!
VdGG and PH are only "technical" in that PH defines his music through his words ... the music he plays does NOT interfere with the lyrics, and neither does it "drive" the words ... the words command the music ... and we might say, they compose the music ... whereas most rock bands create a riff and then add words to it ... so in this sense PH and VdGG is very technical ... and very difficult to deal with consequently, because it is so different and out there, but it is a "style" that is defined and created from the theatrical experiments in Europe through out the 60's ... screaming as a part of the lyrics was massive in "the angry young men" and in America with "the actor's studio" ... for which Marlon Brando gets the best example ... STELLLLAAAAAAAAA ... !!!
The others I would agree with ... not technical, but well defined and designed. GENESIS might be considered "technical" in the early material during PG since it changed so much, and I think the knock on that was that the musicians were sitting and playing and paying attention to what they were doing ... and rock fans think this is an insult and STILL trash Robert Fripp for it! So, yeah, early GENESIS could be considered "technical" and likely influenced by the difficult and different material being done at the time through out all over Europe.
For example ... MAGMA is very technical ... it could not survive, more than likely without it! And then on one album you hear Christian Vander sing, instead of drum, and you go ... wowow ... that is insane and amazing ... but no one will bother hearing that and commenting! It is one for the ages and then some! It can not be considered technical although it has to since he is doing it in another "language", but you and I do not know if this is instinctive to him, because if it is ... we have a masterpiece and an unbelievable moment in music!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 08:47
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
For me technical means a focus on the skills involved with the instrument and not so much the feel or melodic content. Imo, Al Di Meola is an example of a technical player.
Another great quote here, I agree! Luc Lemay from Gorguts is the most technical guitar player that still manages to involve feel, emotion, mood, etc. Gorguts rules, so doesn't Di Meola!
I think you meant to say "so does Di Meola." Right?
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 11:40
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 12:54
dr wu23 wrote:
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
Hi,
I think it is a fair question and many of the comments are actually challenging ... it is not so easy and cut and dried to consider one or the other ... they both fit sometimes, and they both don't fit at other times.
I think we need to look at music history some ... newer stuff was always "technical" because no one knew how to play it, or at least had never heard anything like it ... so "technical" becomes a valuable term ... I seriously doubt that a violin playing a melody, and 50 years later 10 violins, and then 50 more years later a whole orchestra, playing the same "melody" would be considered technical at all ...
I think it is something that we should let "simmer" for a while and then re-open it again ... giving all of us a few more chances to think about it. I have never seen, or thought or a single musician as "technical" ... but then, all of a sudden, hearing CAN talk about music in many interviews, and their teachers, they show their schooling REALLY WELL, and how it made them ... it could be said to be "technical" altogether, though I find it difficult to go along with it ... I find it more about making the "internal movie" alive, than I do anything else ... and Holger Czukay's first 2 solo albums, are EXACTLY THAT ... an attempt at clarifying the inner movie, which eventually he stated that he did not like it as much as the ambient stuff he was doing ... and I think it is because it was "technical" in that he had to add layer upon layer and more layers, to create something so different and unusual and yet ... magnificent!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 15:26
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 25 2020 at 15:43
dr wu23 wrote:
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
I'm looking forward to the discussion on what does the term "thing" mean to you.
"What's up?" "Dunno, just doing my thing." "And what thing is that?" "Dunno, stuff."
------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Posted By: Awesoreno
Date Posted: September 26 2020 at 00:27
dr wu23 wrote:
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
There's a pandemic on. This is my life.
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 26 2020 at 01:07
dr wu23 wrote:
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
Aw come on, at least it's not the same poll variation again! Should I make a poll about it? LOL
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:
For me technical means a focus on the skills involved with the instrument and not so much the feel or melodic content. Imo, Al Di Meola is an example of a technical player.
Another great quote here, I agree! Luc Lemay from Gorguts is the most technical guitar player that still manages to involve feel, emotion, mood, etc. Gorguts rules, so doesn't Di Meola!
I think you meant to say "so does Di Meola." Right?
Yes, mobile typing botch! You've got it. They both rule!
rogerthat wrote:
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Frenetic Zetetic wrote:
Atheist were simply called technical metal back in the day. I wouldn't call their album Elements death metal, despite it sounding similar to bands I would give that title. They've always had more of a fusion and thrash feel that causes death metal fans to just label them tech metal.thrash. It's asinine. Exactly why I made this thread lol. Any band that doesn't espouse over the top death and gore lyrics were typically dropped of the death metal title, despite having exactly the same musical characteristics. They were used interchangeably.
Atheist weren't called just technical metal, it was always either death metal or technical death metal. I agree that they are difficult to classify which is also what makes them a one-off in any event. They don't prove that there was this big burgeoning genre called technical metal. It was always tech death/tech thrash. Tech death expanded into prog death at some point. Atheist, like Cynic, have also been called progressive death metal. I believe both bands are on PA which is apt.
Not arguing that point at all. My point was ironically everyone is going to call it a different thing. I've heard Kelly himself call the band Atheist technical metal, flat out. I met him in person and he just called them technical metal. A user above has a technical rock link with bands I was saying I'd call math. It's interesting to see how quickly the thread devolved from people explaining their take on it to defending source X, Y, Z definition OF it as if there is objectivity (not implying you're doing so), lol.
The thread devolved in this way because one poster decided to make the thread all about himself. It is unfortunate this thread caught his attention but what can we do. I would ordinarily give a lot more leeway on genre names. I am personally not very much hung up on it and if anything, when I was really into metal, the plethora of sub classifications used to bore the hell out of me. However, with svetty, I am not prepared to yield an inch. And I can see that others like Dark Elf have the same attitude to him. Now I wonder why that would be.
Yeah, I saw that little exchange back there LOL.
SteveG wrote:
A friend of mine once said that if the music sounds technical, then it is. I'll go with that.
At least this is logical! Lol .
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: progtime1234567
Date Posted: September 26 2020 at 11:36
I think it means having complicated song structures and compositions, but it could also refer to the skill and technique used by musicians.
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 27 2020 at 00:01
progtime1234567 wrote:
I think it means having complicated song structures and compositions, but it could also refer to the skill and technique used by musicians.
This is how I describe it. Gorguts "The Erosion of Sanity" is an apex, archetypical technical death metal album with progressive influences, whereby the riffing is the point.
Suffocation "Breeding The Spawn" gets you with the arrangements; they're nothing short of insane and arguably the dictionary definition of what you just said!
I'll be back with exact clips for reference when I'm off mobile.
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: thief
Date Posted: September 28 2020 at 03:43
About that "technical rock" thing - I've also never seen it as a genre. Not even sure it would be helpful at all, since most rock stuff that could be described by the word "technical" fall into well established genres, like progressive rock or fusion... be it King Crimson playing Fracture or Mahavishnu Orchestra going bananas.
Using metal subgenres as an argument for "technical rock" genre existence won't cut it. Like it or not, there is a long tradition of "technical death metal" and, by extension, "technical thrash metal".
Speaking of genre naming customs, Metallica themselves used to call their style (1983-84 span) a "power metal", although we recognize it as "thrash metal" canon, and power metal being completely different trope. So I wouldn't put much weight in an article coming up with more names, maybe just for literary reasons (journalists often try to make things flowery). It's not much different than us here calling Nursery Cryme and Edwardian/Victorian rock album.
Posted By: FatherChristmas
Date Posted: September 28 2020 at 11:17
What Does The Term "Technical" Mean to You?
Anything you want it to be. Four pages of disagreement has shown that.
dr wu23 wrote:
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
Tend to agree. But it was an interesting question.
------------- "Music is the wine that fills the cup of silence" - Robert Fripp "I am an anti-Christ" - Johnny Rotten
Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: September 29 2020 at 00:25
Logan wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
I'm looking forward to the discussion on what does the term "thing" mean to you.
"What's up?" "Dunno, just doing my thing." "And what thing is that?" "Dunno, stuff."
dr wu23 wrote:
4 pages on what 'technical' means ? Really ?
Guys...get a life.
Again, as I've been saying:
1. This board in general is circling the drain!
2. It's better than the rampant arbitrary list and repeat-polls!
What do polls mean to you guys?
Is it really prog?
What's your top 10 favorite letters of the alphabet?
Want to argue about a topic that can't be empirically proven, but we'll act like it is?
Which of these 10 albums you've been listening to for the last 30 years is your favorite, again? Want to repeat your entire library of opinions over and over through polls and lists? PA is the place for you! Don't progress too far though, that's out of bounds guys. By the way, this band is also all three genres and none of them at the same time. PA!!!!
You guys, like, want to make a list of all 61 Genesis golden era songs in your preferred order? That's cool discussion and totally not repetitive or over-thought at all!
Talking about what a word might mean relative to progressive rock though, we can't have that! It's too far out! My creativity and thinking centers are sore from never being used in actual conversation on PA outside of the above, yet I somehow have thousands and thousands of posts!
You guys know Pink Floyd is actually pre-industrial post-edge core psych-space rock, right?
-------------
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Posted By: Awesoreno
Date Posted: September 29 2020 at 13:10
UMMMMMMMMM ACTUALLY PINK FLOYD IS UCIYGKUTDUTFIGIR*&^*RUYTIYF^$^&^TOVUYSYRDUE75987o967eyrdifuyGITIUY PSYCH POP
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: September 29 2020 at 13:30
Awesoreno wrote:
UMMMMMMMMM ACTUALLY PINK FLOYD IS UCIYGKUTDUTFIGIR*&^*RUYTIYF^$^&^TOVUYSYRDUE75987o967eyrdifuyGITIUY PSYCH POP
I don't understand that. You're getting too Technical for me.
Mormegil wrote:
I've seen this kind of music called "instrumental" or "shred". But never like that. 
