The great Cinderalla debat (it's fun c'mon in) This is for my main man mattbro, I honestly mean no offense. Some of the discussion in the thread about the spawn of satan aka Toby and the Chicks, related to musical profeciancy got me thinking about how important "chops" are to quality. Now there are many ways of approaching this question and I'm really curious to hear what some folks have to say. I will agree that the vast (overwhelming) majority of time, bands/artists that can't command their instruments or voices blow big ************ing chunks, but it's also been apparent to me that artists that could fry every last fret on the neck of their PRS Custom or a singer that jump octaves like a track star jumps hurdles can still blow because they have no soul, no true musical sense, or ability to write or interpret songs. It seems to me that as long as an artist has enough competence to play a song correctly to whatever degree is necessary to convey their message or melody then that's enough. Certainly there are some who can do that and then some. Certainly there are some who in the process of conveying the song to the listner can utterly dazzle and astound with the method in addition to the other intangibles of music. For sure music is an extremely subjective thing, after all we're just talking about the arrangement of sound waves in some coherent fashion. The example brought up in the other thread about Cinderella v. AC/DC as relates to playing ability seems to miss the point, indeed I may be misreading or it may have been mis-stated, but the way I see it, if Jeff Labar can play 10X as many scales 10X as fast as Malcolm or Angus Young, it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot if the Young brother's songs are 10X better or better interpreted. Trying to quantify elements of music to present the argument that one artist is better than another seems frought with peril. To be honest it seems to miss the point completely. I realize in this that it is a slippery slope when we try to define the parameters for legitimate musical criticism. But what the hell. The secondary issue with the "chops" argument is the mucisian argument. It is my honest belief that good music can be appreciated by anyone willing to hear it and musicianship of the listener should not matter at the core or the argument. It is absolutely true that being a musician might allow one to gain a bit more from a particular piece or in some cases inhibit enjoyment (Segovia wouldn't listen to anything played on any electric instrument), but at the core the song's the thing IMHO. As in this last thread when I denigrated the masters of "Night Songs", which I fully stand by still, it's a thing purely of my subjective taste. This is not to say there aren't reasons I don't like it, they are legion. I'm sure in the defense of the Cinsters there's the simple and irrefutable arguement that someone like them and they're good because "the ************ing rock". If someone thinks this there is no comeback on earth, well save the "no they don't (and let's be honest that's kinda lame) that's gonna make somebody who digs something change their mind. So what are some other opions? How important is musical mastery. Does musicianship give one a superior listening advantage? In a street fight between Cinderella and Coldplay who's goin' cryin' home to mama? Don't AC/DC just completely kick ass with no debate? Why do fools fall in love? Why do Stars fall from up above. Why do they fall in love? With respect, K. PS no one is really standing up for Toby and the Chicks on any musical level are they?
As someone who tends to write and play rather technical music, I have to say technical proficiency is of absolutely no intrinsic importance to me- I just want to hear good music. Musicianship does give one a different listening experience but I wouldn't use the term "superior listening advantage." Music (like all mediums), unless it is never performed live, or recorded and released, is an interactive experience, where the musician produces stimuli and it's up to the listener to decode it according to who they are. The musician's listening experience is certainly more informed by technical and academic knowledge, and the musician is certainly more likely to discern technical flaws, but those concerns are of trivial interest, and really don't 'enhance' a listening experience. A good song is a good song, whether you know what key/mode/time signature it is in, or who produced it, or not. I can certianly tell you that the more I know academically about music, and the more I have experienced all aspects of the musician thing, the less I have seemed to instictively react to music, especially live. And my money would certainly be on Cinderella over Coldplay in a streetfight, AC/DC kicks ass almost by definition alone, fools fall in love with each other, stars don't even 'fall' from a physics perspective, and I don't know who "they" are, so I can't tell you how they fall in love.
The only thing I can contribute to this discussion is that the drummer, Fred Coury, is from my hometown (well not really he lived in Johnson City, which is pretty much a suburb of Binghamton). That and my family is tight with his. Other than that, I saw them in concert once and yes I'm ashamed to admit it.
My favorite solo of all time is the one in "I Wanna Live" by the Ramones. Does that answer your question? I'm not a huge Ramones fan, BTW.
(Sigh) I’m hesitant to enter this debate, but I’ll give it my best effort: First of all, music is subjective. We each have our own reasons for listening to the music we listen to. Musicianship is important to me. I’ve been playing guitar for 14 years and I can honestly say I have reached a level where I feel I can play with anyone, world-famous or otherwise. With this perspective, I can tell you it takes a tremendous amount of hard work, determination and yes, intelligence, to make music like that played by e.g. the Scorpions and Whitesnake. And that is precisely the reason I get so bent out of shape when I hear critic-types completely dismissing those bands and others of the genre. Admittedly, the Scorpions can’t write lyrics like U2. But by the same token, U2 can’t play like the Scorpions. Both bands write catchy songs that appeal to the masses (although the Scorpions can no longer count on mainstream radio or TV airplay to communicate their music). So why is one band taken so much more seriously by the critics (and pretty much everyone on these boards, I presume) than the other? I prefer cock rock to other genres for the same reason I would rather watch Brazil play than e.g. Austria, where I live. It is a great thrill for me to see and hear musicians at the top of their game doing things most others can’t. I saw Whitesnake last Monday in Vienna, and I can tell you, you will have a hard time finding another rock band that can play with those guys. For me it’s like watching the Olympics and seeing years and years of hard work and dedication paying off. I can’t get that level of musicianship from Bruce Springsteen, for example. Having said that, lack of world-class musicianship won’t keep me from enjoying a song. I have a whole hard drive full of downloaded songs with no guitar solos on them. That’s fine too. But I won’t get real excited about it unless I can admire the musicianship. Again, someone like Footix probably isn’t as concerned with technical prowess. I have no beef with that. People should listen to what they want to listen to. But why is musicianship completely disregarded by so many here as an aspect of music?
Probably because this isn't a musicians board, per se. It's true, I don't analyize music for technical marks...in fact I really don't analyze it at all. If it makes me emotional in one way or another, it's interesting to me. The same goes for most all types of art. If all art were judged by technical merit, Jackson Pollock, Lars Von Trier, Daniel Johnston, Howard Finster, ESG, and zillions of other very interesting artists would be wrongly dismissed, and that would be stupid. Anyway, I maintain that Cinderella are not even that superior musically in the grand scheme of Rock. Perhaps they may be better than a lot of hair bands, but the Hair Metal genre really had less to do with chops than looks, vibe, and hooks.
So this pretty much inevitably brings us back to the point that music is entirely subjective, as listening to Coldplay presumably doesn't evoke any more joyous emotions in you than listening to Winger does in me. Yeah, but as it is now, a whole genre of music is wrongly dismissed (however you define that) despite a very high level of musicianship. For what it's worth, I agree with you on Cinderella: the major argument in their favor is not their chops, but rather the way they combined rock-n-roll with blues, country and swagger to create some (in my and many other people's opinion) pretty decent music. The Live at the Key Club record captures this really well, and IMO would be interesting listening for anyone in this forum. And what the hair metal genre "had to do with" depends on whom you talk to - again, it's pretty arbitrary. Grunge, rap and every other genre of music are also every bit as based on looks and vibe as hair metal was. Replace the word "hooks" with the word "beats" and you could be describing rap. But invariably hair metal is still widely regarded as the soundtrack to the lives of a whole generation of idiots - and I still haven't figured out why. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see Iron Maiden at the Stadthalle!
I envy you. i realy wanted to see them on this tour, but before i buy a ticket for one of those shity MTV festivals they play on in Germany, with all those whiny bands they call rock today, hell will freeze over. Btw, could you please post if they played any songs from the new album ?
Yes they did! One song, forgot what it was called, but it was pretty good. They said they'd be coming back to Vienna in November after the new record comes out, so presumably they'll do a German tour as well. Maiden fans are a rough crowd, lemme tell ya!
I'm no expert on hair bands, but I think the difference between the Scorpions and U2-type bands is twofold- the lyrics (the message) and the secondary message sent by the music itself. 80s hair rockers shot themselves in the foot first by creating songs to display their chops rather than using chops (combined with artistic ability) to say what they wanted to say thru the guitar, then they shot themselves in the other foot by dressing the music with teenage keg-party lyrics and way too much showmanship. The era also featured some of the ugliest guitars ever designed. What can you say about a genre that featured more neon-colored, oddly-shaped, Floyd Rose-equipped Ibanez/Kramer/B.C. Rich guitars than Strats or Les Pauls? It's the "let's have a big 'ol party!" attitude that makes it tough for anyone to take it seriously. Classic U2 shows were parties, too- but they were a different kind of party, sometimes attended by people who wanted to hear more serious thoughts spoken to guitar accompaniment. I can't help but think you're confusing guitar technique with songwriting ability. Being "at the top of their game" in terms of having the dexterity to blaze the fingerboard does not mean that they are writing serious songs. Somewhere along the late 70s/early 80s, musicianship in rock became synonymous with finger and pick speed, and that's a shame. The Edge says more with the few notes he plays than most hair band guitarists do in a whole show, I'd suspect- and you can hear his musicianship thru your speakers, rather than having to confirm it by checking for wear on the upper frets. I don't think musicianship is being disregarded at all. I do think people are beginning to judge songs again by their sound rather than giving the song/artists a rating based on the song's difficulty level. A group of engineers can build the safest structure in the world, but only the intangible arts of architecture and interior design/decorating/whatever will make it someplace you wanna live in. But while we're on the topic of technique, I'd like to toss something out. What these hair bands are doing ain't that hard, considering that the songs they play often feature the same chord roots(usually E, A, D, G and C), the same time signatures, the same formulaic intro/verse/verse2/chorus/verse3/chorus/bridge/solo/chorus/chorus...fade song structure. If you really want to hear talent expressed in music, you want to see these guys play a tune in a different way every time, at different tempi, different time sigs, soloing over the progression without duplicating last night's or last week's licks. You want them to show their skills where it really counts. In jazz. If they're not playing straightahead jazz, chances are there's a 16-year old hanging around the local music store who can do what they do.
This is a good debate - I really appreciate this. I disagree with this assessment. Yngwie Malmsteen creates songs to display his chops. The hair metal bands didn’t. They packaged superior chops within regular, radio-friendly songs, which in my opinion is an art in itself. Can’t really argue about the keg-party lyrics, except to say I much prefer them to the mopey, self-pitying lyrics of the 90s. As for the guitars: if you are trying to shred, it is a lot easier to do so on an Ibanez or a Kramer (I own three of the former and one of the latter!) than on a Strat or a Les Paul (both of which I have owned at one time or another). You’re correct that the gaudy colors didn’t help! This is the crux of it. I maintain that there are basically two kinds of music fans: there are those who look for innovation and thought-provoking lyrics in an artist, and there are those who simply want to hear catchy songs they can sing along with or dance to. The former are the kind of people who tend to become music critics and thus shape public opinion about popular music. The latter is probably the bigger group, to which I belong. For me to like a song, it has to have a catchy melody I can sing along with easily. That’s why I’ve been listening to Dido a lot lately. But for me to REALLY like a song, it also needs to be played with a high level of musicianship. Don’t get me wrong, thought-provoking lyrics are a bonus, but they aren’t a must for me. Also a lot of these artists who try to express “serious thoughts” end up coming across as a bit pretentious to me. That’s why there’s only so much U2 I can stand, because they take themselves waaaay to seriously. . Doesn’t mean they aren’t either. Hence my point about being unfairly written off. Totally subjective. Well yes, you’re addressing the difference between composition and technique. Hair metal song structures are not complex, which is why they were able to appeal to the masses. For example, I just can’t get into Dream Theater, because the song structures are so complex that I find them boring. Those guys have great chops, too, but the complexity of the composition is kind of an obstacle for me. Again, the hair metallers were able to neatly package superior chops within simply structured songs that appealed to the masses. Personally, I don’t particularly enjoy improvising. I’m certainly not bad at it, but it doesn’t really float my boat. I enjoy trying to write the perfect solo for a song and then nailing it night for night on stage (not that my band plays every night, unfortunately!). As for the 16-year-old at the local music store, yeah it’s possible. But unless he’s a prodigy, he’s going to need to spend ten years developing his chops just like everyone else in order to play on the level of a Whitesnake or Van Halen. Man, that was a tome. Is anyone still reading this?
This is pretty interesting debate. Mattrbro brings up an interesting point that I think gets overlooked sometimes and that is the ability to communitcate something musically to a large group of people. Pop musicians, which includes for this purpose includes hair metal, of the highest caliber are able to tap into some musical currents in the world that can get just about anyone's toes tapping. This really is no mean feat. I would argue that it doesn't necessarilly make for "good" music (the difficult subjective debate mentioned above) but it does require no mean skill and quite a bit of work. Outside the subjective issues of good and bad, which will never be able to be rationally satisfied, the idea of what I call the musicianship approach to quality has what I percieve as an inherent flaw; most people (but certainly not all) who are the intended target for a song/album are not vituoso musicians. I see in this the same sort of flaw that existed in James Joyce's statements about "Finnegan's Wake". He said it took him 17 years to write it so it should take a person 17 years to read it. This sort of setting the bar at a minimum competency to be able to ingest an artistic work, certainly this extreme a level, means that in someways the books is basically useless to majority of humanity. It's certainly ok if there's something not to one's taste, or that a bit of extra knowledge is required to apprehend it's meaning, but setting the bar, as it were, where only a handful of the most dedicated can even approach the work, in my mind seriously if not completely diminshes it's possible worth. In that way saying only the ability by the listener to appreciate virtuosity, which implies similar competency by the listener, limits the possible audience and runs counter to what I believe is the fundemental and over riding rule of music: "the ear is the court of last resort". If it sounds good it is good. This is not to completely denigrate skill. There are many players, bands, singers, what have you that have skill that blow me away, the ability to play complex passages, hit notes, command difficult times signatures is something that I find appealing. Often it is the most skilled who make the best music. Almost invariably though it is the song I appreaciate first and formost, and the skill second. Obviously the two are not unrelated, but the skills should make the music stand out not vice versa. I like the quote from Nat King Cole to an up and coming singer when asked for advice. He said, "Don't get in the way of the song".
I don't play any instruments, but I think I can hear good musicianship. But it doesn't really matter to me if I like the overall sound or the lyrics really hit home and they're played/sung with soul and feel.
Can't speak for anyone else here, but for me, it all boils down to the idea that technical musical proficiency is only means to an end, never an end in itself. I'd much rather listen to a mediocre high school pianist struggling through a Brahms intermezzo than listen to the New York Philharmonic playing Yanni.
You know, I can put up with it to a certain extent when people diss hair metal, but when you disrespect Yanni you're going too far!
Great news, thanks ! As for the original discussion: If a band can play their instruments or not doesn't matter to me at all. I worship a lot of bands with, let's say at least questionable talent at their instruments.
This is a very interesting debate. I think everyone is agreeing that music is very subjective. People like music for different reasons, some like the vocals, playmanship and others like it because it speaks to them in some other form emotionally. Personally I am biased in what I listen to. I have been playing guitar for about 15 years, so I am more apt to listen to things guitar oriented. Now this isn't to say that I don't like other things about music. IMO music is funny, totally emotional to the person(s) making it and emotional to the person that hears it or feels it. Mattbro said he wasn't that much into Dream Theater because he didn't like following all of the lines, but me on the other hand, it speaks to me very much and I enjoy the different feelings it brings out in one song. Damn just got called to a meeting.
I see. My limited experience with the genre made me put most hair bands in the same category as Malmsteen's band. But those lyrics may be a big reason the music didn't last (more on music not lasting later). I'm from the school of "if you don't have anything important to say, just write an instrumental". The "mopey, self-pitying" lyrics of the 90s are a reflection of the thoughts of those who wrote the songs. Same with the U2 songs. Even Lynyrd Skynyrd had a message. I like to know enough about the artist to make an informed decision about whether they deserve my money (I mean morally- Skynyrd has better guitar technicians than the Edge, but Sweet Home Alabama would prevent me from ever buying their music or seeing them live)- then I'll decide if the songs are good enough. Gotcha. Is it the flat fingerboard or the locking trem, or the extra two frets, or all three? I know Yngwie played a Strat, but his might have been custom. I'm a bassist in my free time myself. I have two Fender Jazz basses (one fretted, one fretless), a neck-thru-body Aria Pro II (where I got my BigSoccer username from) Why in God's name did they do that? Everything should be sunburst or natural. That way, the instruments ultimately earn respect as craftsmanship. I'm still wrestling with your use of the term "high level of musicianship". Are you telling me that you find music more enjoyable to listen to if you perceive it as being difficult to play? That would keep you out of both groups of music fans you mentioned. The critics are more interested in form and artistry, the masses are more interested in shaking their asses, but you don't seem to fit into either group you mention. Disagree totally. I loved U2's early sound and purpose. There is way too much apathy in the world today with regard to injustices, and if someone -anyone- has the balls to use music to try to make a difference (even if it doesn't always work), all the better. It doesn't matter that they are entertainers and not politicians. The world needs more U2s and fewer bands whose role in life is to give mindless fans a mindless good time.
Check out the socially conscious lyrics to Saturday Night Special by Skynyrd: http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?id=8693 It is the wide, flat fingerboard, the ultra-thin and low-friction neck and the extra frets. Not that I need the 23rd and 24th all that often, but the longer neck means that even the 21st and 22nd frets are much easier to access than on a Strat or a Les Paul. Yngwie's Strats are customized with a scalloped fingerboard and other accessories, but I believe he plays some classic ones too. I did not know that! I figured your username had something to do with Brazilian soccer... Well, Poison was a very colorful band, as befitted the era - definitely part of their schtick. Ironically, it helped them get noticed, but apparently (in hindsight) drew attention away from their music (which I would argue wasn't all that bad, though many will disagree). You never saw those gaudy guitars from Cinderella and Tesla. The intricate technique just makes it more interesting for me. Like my Brazil vs. Austria analogy. I'd rather see Ronaldo dribble through the defense and deke the GK than watch Hans Fussballman score after a goal-mouth scramble. That's why a well-composed solo (such as the subtle yet technical stylings of the Scorps' Matthias Jabs, as opposed to the club-you-over-the-head shredding of Yngwie) does a lot more for me than no solo at all or a strummed chord progression. I definitely belong more to the second group than the first. Hell, I even enjoy listening to trashy Europop like the Vengaboys or the Spice Girls, because it's catchy and happy and I can sing along. But I probably won't buy the album because the ornate musicianship isn't there. Also I'm not diametrically opposed to critically acclaimed music. I'll listen to a Coldplay song if it's catchy. Every once in a while I'll find myself in an introspective mood, and I'll download something that makes me reflect. But usually the stuff in my own collection gives me enough food for thought on account of the musicianship. Well, you're probably right - but I can't be the only one who finds Bono's ego intolerable!
This is a good thing, it really is. It doesn't cancel out "...I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern Man don't need him around anyhow...", but it's a start. I've always admired Skynyrd's playing, but when they pander to hatred and violence with their flag, I can't be convinced that they're trying to do good. I remember telling an acquaintance who was trying to organize a boycott of Marilyn Manson (they thought he was a Satanist- I don't kinow if it's true or not)to get his priorities in order -no Satanist could ever be as bad as a Confederate flagger. No, but that's a way better guess than I usually get. Gotcha. We're talking about the same effect, just using different types of music to achieve it. I see a Coltrane solo as Ronaldo's dribble, in that it won't happen again exactly the same way. I've got some closet pop listener tendencies as well, but they're rooted in the 70s music I grew up with. Pop was great music then, and radio stations played such a broad mixture that you got a chance to hear rock, country, R&B and some instrumentals along with it. It's a shame what radio has become in the last 20 years or so. Oh, I'm sure he's egotistic- but I just buy the albums. If the message is worthwhile and the messenger's personal life isn't in direct contrast to the message, I cut him a bit of slack.
As someone who has played guitar for 20 years, I've become more than slightly aware of technical aspects of musicians' playing, especially guitarists. Having said that, technical ability is not what I focus on when I listen to music. I absolutely love the playing of guys like Robben Ford, Larry Carlton and Steve Lukather, but I'm not really listening to their technical prowess. A lot of it comes down to note choice and feel. Music either moves me or not. That doesn't mean that I don't dig some technical aspects of music. Angus Young- not the most technical player, but his vibrato kills me and that's part of his technique. Yngwie- the guy can play his ass off but it's his tone that I love. I really don't buy into any kind of idea that says the message is important. AC/DC's Back in Black, for me, is one of the greatest albums of all time, but I can't really listen to anything of theirs past '82. Never have been able to. Did they get smarter or dumber? You can't really compare U2 to an '80's hair band and say that the reason U2 are still around is because of being more socially conscious. There were a lot of bands that were socially conscious but didn't have the staying power of Bon Jovi.
Most of the musicians out there have the minimum skills (I'll exempt the singers) required, and I can appreciate really accomplished musicians. But really great musicians playing lousy songs doesn't go too far with me. Even I can do Hells Bells on a guitar, but I can't think of anything done by Eddie Van Halen which pleased me as much to listen to, even though he's a much better guitarist. I also like a little evidence that they've spent some effort developing the melody and composing the song. I especially hate a poor ending to a song, that can ruin a good song. As far as message goes, I don't care whether the band is Alabama chauvinists or communists. My ideal lyricist was Mark Farner of Grand Funk, his lyrics mostly were totally devoid of any serious message. That way I don't have to ignore insipid political messages. On th ACDC question, my opinion is that they took several albums to develop their craft, put out two really high quality albums (HTH and BIB) and then started coasting. By the time HTH came out I'd concluded that ACDC stunk on ice. I was astonished at the quality of those two albums.