What Does The Term "Technical" Mean to You? |
Post Reply | Page 123 5> |
Author | ||||
Frenetic Zetetic
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 09 2017 Location: Now Status: Offline Points: 9233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
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 |
||||
Mormegil
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 03 2010 Location: NE PA Status: Offline Points: 6463 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Grumpyprogfan
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 09 2019 Location: Kansas City Status: Offline Points: 10076 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. Edited by Grumpyprogfan - September 23 2020 at 05:57 |
||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20506 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||
It's a Jersey thing.
|
||||
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
||||
friso
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 24 2007 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 2505 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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!
|
||||
Spacegod87
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 16 2019 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1101 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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....
|
||||
Levitating downwards,
atomic feedback scream. |
||||
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 12703 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||
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... |
||||
wiz_d_kidd
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 13 2018 Location: EllicottCityMD Status: Offline Points: 1360 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16179 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. Edited by moshkito - September 23 2020 at 07:43 |
||||
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 |
||||
JD
Forum Senior Member Joined: February 07 2009 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 18373 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||
Simply put... Executed with perfection.
|
||||
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
|
||||
Awesoreno
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 07 2019 Location: Culver City, CA Status: Offline Points: 2889 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16179 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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!
Edited by moshkito - September 23 2020 at 12:39 |
||||
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 |
||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Frenetic Zetetic
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 09 2017 Location: Now Status: Offline Points: 9233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
I like this description! Lots of noise but not much actually happening.
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?
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 |
||||
Awesoreno
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 07 2019 Location: Culver City, CA Status: Offline Points: 2889 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
^ 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.
|
||||
Boboulo
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 21 2020 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 661 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Cristi
Special Collaborator Crossover / Prog Metal Teams Joined: July 27 2006 Location: wonderland Status: Offline Points: 41381 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I've never heard of "technical rock". Now you're making up stuff.
|
||||
richardh
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 18 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 26199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
'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.
|
||||
Frenetic Zetetic
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 09 2017 Location: Now Status: Offline Points: 9233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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!
Ok, gotcha, and I agree then! |
||||
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021 |
||||
Post Reply | Page 123 5> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |