Is Prog For Musicians Only?

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, (no 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. 

Edited by TheLamb - March 11 2007 at 11:50

Floydian42 wrote: Can we just settle on the Prog expirience is enhanced if your a musician?

How could you know anyways? How can one know how someone else experinces music? Its sortof silly......

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...

To me, being a "musician" requires no further qualifications than the attempt to make music. This can range from simply banging pots and pans together, to Ramones style minimalism, to jazz virtuosity without an active understanding of theory, to Horiwitzian prowess of both the intellectual and physical aspects of music. Your instrument can be a laptop or even an orchestra itself (many great composers, such as Berlioz, didn't play instruments, or at least not well.)
To say you have to the underlying principles of music and be a virtuoso to be aa "musician" is, to me, elitist and wrong.

I never meant to imply that being a technically proficient player will somehow make you record only cold technical music. Like was said there are some amazing jazz artists who play with alot of emotion and skill. Coltrane is a perfect example, the guy was a technical monster but he didnt feel the need to show it at every chance he got. The best virtuosos are the ones who can step back and add to the overall feel to the music, instead of just showing how proficient they are and overtaking the music. It really depends on the person, if you're not a very creative person you might use your talent as a crutch (see: Yngwie Malmsteen)or you may use your talent towards brilliant and innovative music, without feeling the need to always show how fast you can play. See: Steve Hillage, Chris Cutler, Eric Dolphy, Tony Williams, Robert Fripp, David Jackson, Guy Evans, Charles Mingus... the list goes on and on.

As for the topic at hand.. people enjoy music in many different ways, some people get alot out of the technical side of music, and some people enjoy the obscurity of not knowing what the musicians are doing, simply getting lost in the sound and atmosphere. Prog is for everyone.

TheLamb wrote: Chus, Technical dosen't mean cold... neither does being slow mean you are emotional :P Lots of Jazz gods are technically brilliant and also emotionally great... I don't say DT are cold because they are technically brilliant... Its just because they are kinda cold IMO. There are many people especially in Jazz who have both technique and emotion... Hiromi Uehara, John McLaughlin, basically all the Jazz-Fusion artists... and of course Charlie Parker and his contemporary straight forward bebop people :P   If you like Jazz, you probably like Thelonious Monk... That guy was far from a technical master... infact he was pretty mediocre... as a pianist.... but he was nonethless a genius, dont you think?...   Technique Can go hand in hand with emotion... no one said otherwise... But sometimes using technique in certain ways makes music sound cold... and cold music can be apprecaited to more extent by musicians... because they understand whats going on... thats all Im saying...

stonebeard wrote: Why do people refer to prog musicians as "good/great/amazing players?" Surely if everyone who played music had to have a high level of musicianship, then prog musicians would not be in any higher echelon. All would be equal.

Well, I would argue that being a great player is not relative to the qulaity of other players. When a new musician of amazing abilities emerges, does that suddenly lessen the talents of those who came before them? In my opinion, no.

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.

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.