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

If you phrase it as "showy displays of virituosity" it would be hard not to be skeptical about it but skillful musicianship is something that I appreciate more with time. And the thing is, it is often subtle, not necessarily flashy.

 

It's never been either/or for me. I like the Miles Davis Quintet, and I dig Creedence.

All things being equal, I think that I would probably prefer better technical skills, but things are never equal. I mean, I love the Go-Go's, but it would be pretty weird if Neil Peart were their drummer.

 

Not very. I own a lot of obscure rockabilly and garage rock compilations that use terms like "braindead" and "primitive" as compliments.

 

It would make more sense if Geddy Lee were their singer.

 

It's totally about the feel. However, technical proficiency can take it to great heights also.

 

What I look for in the music I love, is the striking of that perfect balance between emotion and technique. Music sounds lopsided to me if it's lacking in one or the other.

I'm not talking about technical virtuosity, per se. I'm talking about artists who have enough skill to covey the message they want to send. No matter how raw a recording might be, getting passion down on a track takes skill. There are just many different kinds of skill. I wouldn't expect Yes to sound like The Ramones, and I wouldn't expect The Sex Pistols to sound like Glen Campbell. But all had skill. And feel.

 

I just got an unexpected insight that is somewhat related to this question.

I'm going to see Bruce Hornsby tonight. I think that his latest album, which is entirely dulcimer music, just sucks. The reason it sucks so bad (IMO) is that it's a form of anti-intellectual denial of his prodigious piano chops on his part. Look, I celebrate his right to work through his personal demons regarding boredom with writing on piano. I also celebrate my right to jump off the bus if his music ceases to move me (as all of his dulcimer escapades do). If I had heard the new album first, I never would have bought tickets to this show.

I just hope that when I walk into the venue, I see a piano on stage. It had better not be 90 minutes of this dulcimer nonsense. I wish I could get a refund on those tix.

On the positive side, I can't recall an upcoming concert in which the bar of expectation was set lower than it is for this show. Sometimes those end up being the best shows.

 

As a decent bass player who plays professionally, it doesn't matter to me. I appreciate great players like Mark Knopfler and I love Steely Dan. I also like Headquarters by the Monkees. It's truly about the feel and the song.
Bands like Yes and Rush bore me for the most part. They sound too calculated.

 

The thing with prog and fusion music in general for me is that a lot of it is very formulaic... "wank this riff/groove for 8 bars, then do something completely different for 4 bars, then something else completely different for 16 bars. Make sure each change has as little connection as possible with the previous section, or any other section in the song." Rush and Steven Wilson for me are some of the worst offenders in that regard. Classic era Yes always seemed to have a bit more gravitas for me. Even now, I can listen to "Heart Of The Sunrise" and be moved by the thematic development, and how beautiful those motifs are. Rush and SW not so much.

 

Here is the definition of technical proficiency:
Must be able to apply the technical knowledge and skills required in the specialist and professional job role and responsibilities in order to achieve the expected outputs.

If that is the case, maybe we should use the word "vitruoso" instead. As as long as you the right notes are hit and everyone can stay in the pocket, even a simple repetitive song like "Seven Nation Army" demonstrates technical proficiency.

 

You have succeeded in completely annoying me (the reader) and I have no idea what you just wrote. That's a genuine talent.

 

Very much so, usually.... but thats just me and my musical experience.

This is terribly snobbish, and I know it, but my thoughts are, if you cant even play as well as poor old me, why should I be impressed with you?

There are dozens of exceptions however, sometimes a band or artist just connects with me on another level - they arent musical giants but there's something else i like. The Ramones for example, I heart those guys. Or did. Well, you know what I mean. Suzanne Vega is another one. Just examples. There are many.

And I dont sit around listening to Steve Vai or Yngvie either. Those guys are about as musical as a dishwasher.

It used to be, growing up, musical ability was all that mattered to me. but as I progressed in my own abilities, and worked with all kinds of bands onstage and in studio.. that became less important. I'm still jazzed by people who can play the hell out of their stuff, but, its not all that matters anymore.

 

Impress me with your chops or impress me with your audacity.

If you can't do either, I'm not interested.

 

Oh man, I feel the same way. I'm a decent guitarist and bassist. But if I see a national touring act with members who can't play any better than I can, it really compromises the experience for me.

 

you just summed up the experience I had watching the White Stripes on Saturday Night Live.

I was really turned off to them by this "performance".

I did hear some studio things later that I liked, but I was and always have been really skeptical. I know Page and Richards adore Jack White, and I'm nobody and I just dont get it.

But to me, he's an over-rated hack, and I cant understand the adoration.

But what do I know.

 

It makes me like them more. but is not necessary.

the beatles for example...even though paul played a mean bass.

 

I care about the overall feel of the music.

 

It's all in the feeling. Occasionally you get technically proficient players/bands that also have the feeling. I'd put Jimi Hendrix and George Harrison in that category.

 

Thanks!!! Just saying maybe "technical proficiency" isn't an accurate term, since songs that have a solid groove with a sense of melody, harmony and structure demonstrate some form of technical proficency.

 

I think a musician should be as technically proficient as they need to be to express themselves on the instrument in the manner that they intend. In other words, so they can play what they hear in their heads. Johnny Ramone had that, and so does Steve Vai. I love both, but they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

It depends on what I'm in the mood for. I do love me some technical guitar playing, though.

 

All I care about is if I like what I hear. I don't think that accomplished musicianship affects whether I like what I hear, one way or the other.

 

Not very.

 

I have been a fan of Luther's playing for decades. His playing on All Aboard the Blue Train are some of the tastiest lead playing of that era. Sadly, i don't know many people who even know who played guitar on those early Cash records.

 

Luther was great. Our band has been playing a bunch of early Cash and I messed around with trying to come up with my own guitar part using a lot of various country stylings... but somehow it clicked into gear when I stopped screwing around and started playing the Boom chicka Boom chicka Luther guitar lines.

its crazy, 5 minutes of that and your wrist will beg for mercy.