How important is technical profiency for you with rock/pop?

Ramones play the way they were born. I don't see no reason to invest Albert Einstein into it. It's good fun.

 

Not. At. All.

 

The thing is being technically proficient within the musical realm in which you are performing. That means playing right and with feeling, whether it's a three-chord song in 4/4, or an harmonically and melodically complex polyrhythmic piece.

 

Absolutely, I'm not an either/or listener on this question. I love a lot of the great progressive rock of the 70s, but at some point, the movement seemed to paint itself into a corner. Cliche though it may be to say, punk was a necessary riposte that helped to clear the decks and revitalize rock in the late 70s in my view. Interestingly, most of the best punk quickly transcended their early limitations to become skillful players (or did so by adding more proficient musicians), but they had to start somewhere.

 

It depends on what the artist is trying to accomplish. Musicians of humble ability can fool me into thinking they are brilliant just by singing and playing the right things. It's all about communication: if you're getting your point across, it doesn't matter what skill level you're at.

 

It's all about how it moves me! "Twinkle, twinkle little star" moves me!

 

Interesting question.

1. I do value proficiency. It's a joy to hear well played music.
2. "Feel" plays a major factor. Some things are "proficiently played" in a simple, loose manner.
3. It is true that, sometimes, lack of musical training allows a musician to "think outside the box".
4. But, for the most part, technical proficiency is not a constraint, but a plus IMO

 

It's still possible to re-invent the cliché without knowing it. Naivete can lead to out-of-the-box solutions, or to the same solution that countless others have already discovered and grown past.

I've heard some things in Joy Division for example that make me think "yeah, I remember droning on and on with that same chord progression when I was 16, I thought it was so profound".

 

I think the key for me is that it has to be soulful, either way. I like a lot of prog rock (and fusion, for that matter), but it's got to convey some sort of genuine emotion (even if it's rage, a la King Crimson). The prog bands I come back to the most, as I get older, are Yes and Genesis because of the emotion that they convey (both in the instrumentation and the vocals). The stuff that's just pure virtuosity does nothing for me, just as a garage punk band that's pure noise does nothing for me.

 

I agree. For example, I enjoy the earlier Soft Machine albums, in large part, because Robert Wyatt brought a freewheeling sense of humanity and humor to the proceedings. After he was forced out, they got lost in an increasingly technical fusion sound that didn't move me on an emotional level.

 

Technical profiency isn't as important as it used to be to me. For progressive and fusion acts, virtuosity was one of the key selling points, and there was a certain snob appeal associated with it. Still, fine with "if you've got the chops, let's see what you've got."

Over the last 5 years or so, my tastes for new music has come from the indie realm. So, these musicians aren't as technically accomplished for a variety of reasons. They have to wear more hats and maybe aren't as dedicated at refining the instrumental aspects. However, there are a lot of great voices (especially women) and the bands tend to focus more on chemistry. This might be about feel. Occasionally, there will be some interesting instrumental breaks, but nothing jaw-dropping.

Maybe not an exciting response, which means my answer is both, depending on the circumstances.

 

Given the choice I prioritize feel over technique. But my favorite music scores high on both.

Of course my very favs are The Beatles, and they are not show off technical wizards. But it is all played tastefully and pretty perfectly. Yes there is an off note here or there (particularly in the Let It Be sessions where there was minimal overdubbing and they abandoned the sessions more based on schedule than because they felt they had done the material justice) but not a one take Dylan level of sloppiness.

 

I value technical proficiency, but that alone isn't enough, and it should never become a goal in itself. I'm generally happy with my music as long as the skills of the players are sufficient enough for what they aim to achieve. The feel is important, too, but as it is more abstract than technical proficiency it is also more difficult to define and assess - one has to go by instinct and feel it, I guess. "The feel" requires proficiency to get through the playing effectively and convincingly, and proficiency requires feel to provide it with substance. Both are vital ingredients of that fascinating whole we call "music"; if either of them is lacking, it's just noise or random sounds we get to hear.

 

Song, performance, sound quality and technical proficiency in that order of importance

 

It is all about what works for any given piece of music. I have always felt that confidence and passion go a long way towards a satisfying performance, whether it is a basic performance from a musical perspective or a very technically demanding performance.

 

Proficient/technical musicians including singing
Good Song writing and arrangements
Good feel

All important to me.

 

You need to have some ability to play music. Does it move and groove or plod and trod? If the music is in the pocket and feels good, then that's all I need. I don't care that Neil Peart can do a handstand while blitzing around his kit.

 

I certainly appreciate accomplished musicianship (watching King Crimson live footage is awe inspiring), but at the same time, I certainly don't need it in order to enjoy the music.

Often, my favourite songs/performances include fairly rough home demos, and I am a big fan of Guided By Voices and their lo-fi sound, because ultimately the song is more important for me than anything else.

 

I value musicianship;

I don't necessarily agree with the results that it sometimes achieves.

Watched the Guitar Moves video of Ace Frehley last night, it's hard to argue with the points he makes within...

 

Technical proficiency and feel are really not opposites/incompatible. They are available to all musicians at any level. The 'problem' (if you can call it that) is that people at either end of the perceived spectrum do not often avail themselves of the 'opposite' end and therefore tend to harden stereotypes we have about music. Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica is an album that, to me, exhibits both high technical proficiency as well as feel - which at times sounds outright sloppy but is actually 'written' that way.

To answer the OP's question, I like to use Roger Ebert's rule where you judge a work by the intent of the artist. So sometimes I enjoy a loosy slovenly feel and sometimes I want absolute precision, all depending on who it is that's playing.

 

I was impressed by Ariel Pink/Haunted Graffiti (live) because the band was so accomplished, they nailed the songs from Before Today with an absolute effortlessness. Reading about them (prior to seeing them), I had the impression that Ariel Pink (live, backed up by whom ever) was just dire, a terrific mess, live. As others have said, I believe it's all about the execution. if there's a raw, exhilarating energy about it.. sometimes that can be enough to carry it.

 

Yep.

 

There has to be at least a basic competence--and yes, the best punk bands had it, but no need for virtuosity. The rhythm section i.e., bass (and bass is important to me--I liked the Cramps, but not the White Stripes or Black Keys) and drums has to be good. I have no use for bands with poor rhythm sections, but making an unholy racket by beating the bejeezuz out of the guitar without the technical skills to do the widdley stuff is fine with me.

 

I mean, it can be easy sometimes to be impressed by shows of technique -- I just saw one of my favorite violinists, Lisa Batiashvilli, last weekend playing the Tchaikovsky violin concerto, and watching her play it I was really struck by flat out how hard it is to play, I mean, I had read about all the violinists back in the day saying it was unplayable but of course I've heard plenty of recorded versions and people play it beautifully all the time (including a Batiashvilli recording), and listening to it it never seemed "hard," but seeing what it entailed, especially with the integration of the harmonic trick notes, it sure was impressive.

But in the end technical proficiency means about as much to me in terms of artistic impact as how many words per minute a novelist can type in terms of literary impact.

That said I don't really think of music, or any art, as bi-polar in that sort of way. And artist needs to have something to say, first and foremost, and then, in the service of that, the technique to be able to communicate it, whatever that technique might be. If you're gonna play that Tchaikovsky violin concerto you're going to need a lot of a certain sort of technique to make it work. If you're going to play some other sort of music, you're going to need different sorts of techniques. If you can communicate what you're trying to communicate, you have the technique you need. Rock and pop might require very different techniques. You know, Joe Strummer probably was a better rock singer than Placido Domingo was when he sang back up vocals as a youngster, but he certainly wasn't the opera singer Domingo is.

 

I can appreciate both--I can vibe to Neil Young's grittiness, and I can marvel at the musical chops of Robert Fripp / Crimson.

It's all in how the music hits me.