Well, I found the PB quote to be a tad irritating. So many people like to dismiss 'technical' playing of an instrument, and whilst it isn't the 'be all and end all' of music, it can be a niche that has a vast amount of loyal fans.

I enjoy all sorts of music, and one aspect that I like is stuff that is technically dazzling but not necessarily 'musical' in the melodic sense. It seems that the world and their dog wants to put this stuff down as having no value. Don't tell me what is good and what isn't!! I'll make up my own mind thanks!

Some people seem to think that their opinion is the only one that counts.

I don't think that the world is oversaturated with the 'hedges' style at all. To a casual listener, they may all sound like they are doing the same thing, but to someone like myself who has liked this style for decades, the likes of Hedges, Eric Roche, Eric Mongrain, Don Ross, Andy McKee, Preston Reed et all sound completely different stylistically, like opposite ends of a spectrum. Personally I don't like Reggae, and every track I've ever heard sounds like a rehash of the same thing. It doesn't mean that they are, but I am happy in my ignorance as I don't like the stuff. However, I wouldn't care to judge it before others as I know that my opinion is naive.

Hmmmn - Not sure if I've really expressed what I meant to there ............ a bit of a rambling rant. Hopefully you guys can read between the lines a bit and not find it offensive!

Hi Twizzle,

The whole idea of this topic was to inspire some interesting discussion, so thanks for adding your point of view.

Back to the actual quote; I don't think PB is knocking "technical playing" as such. Personally, I happen to love Hedges, Andy McKee and Preston Reed, and I have a lot of respect for those other players you mentioned.
However, for me it's about how they use their skills to convey music. Lately I've seen an awful lot of guys using similar ideas without really saying anything new or remarkable.

Most musicians would probably be lying if they said they have never enjoyed a superb technical performance just for the virtuosity. I have that experience almost every time I hear a great bebop solo, even though I don't connect emotionally with that style.

It's also important to acknowledge that great players don't always write "great music" - whatever that means to any given individual.

Cheers,
Andy

Making a blanket statement like this makes you sound like a musical snob. Not to mention being flat out wrong. To imply that that the ideas and passions behind rock music are somehow diminished just because more crappy artists choose rock instead of the others styles is misguided thinking. There may be a lot more crap coming from the rock world than the rest, but that is not because it is a lesser artform, it's because the sample size is larger. Simple. The top 1%, the stuff that moves and progresses any artform, is just as vital as jazz or any other artform you choose. And thats all that matters.

When someone perverts an ideal, you don't diminish the ideal. You diminish the person perverting it.

Not trying to jump on you Glen so if this post came out harsh I apologize. Rock music holds a special place in my heart and when I feel it's being belittled I will defend it voraciously.

Josh

Your last sentence is a extremely good observation. From my experience, musicians as they are developing tend to deviate to either the "performance path" or the "creation path". The focus of a lot of players being the performance of playing while others choose the creative and writing aspects of it. From my experience it's rare when you find a musician who can merge the roads and travel down both at the same time. They are the special ones.

Josh

What I've gleaned from this thread is what I've allways felt; that technique without emotion, in any genre, is without value.

Marty

Being a lover of technical music and a "post whore" I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I find that music like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The more simple music is the more people can understand it's message. The more involved the message the more people you lose. This DOESN'T mean the more involved message (More technical music) isn't "musical," sometimes it's simply too hard for some people to understand.

Tell a person an involved political joke and some won't get it ... tell a FART joke and everybody gets it. That doesn't mean the political joke wasn't funny.

Music and beauty (and humor) is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

I had an argument a few years back regarding a Jackson Pollock painting. An "educated" friend, a former art school teacher, told me that you have to "understand what Pollock intended to do and how he went about creating that effect". When I said it looked like a very large specimen of cat vomit containing strands of yarn, he became infuriated and said "you can't criticise it because you don't get the process" (http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock/bluepoles.html).
Ultimately, whether I "get something" or not generally doesn't affect my opinion about it in terms of my enjoyment. Beethoven can make me teary-eyed in an instant, but Rachmaninov (whom I've been assured by know-it-alls is the greatest composer of classical piano music EVER) well, he's just wasted on me...

As for FART jokes, is there anything more challenging in comedy than taking the oldest, crudest and most mundane joke and making something really funny out of it? Almost as hard as writing a good pop song.

Cheers,
Andy

Essentially it's just arguing taste. And in the end it's pointless arguing something that subjective cause it usually just turns into semantics. I could deliver a dissertation on the philosophy of art and the mind about 1000 pages thick but in the end people will like what they like.

Do I think some musicians have a much deeper understanding and grasp of the artform than others? yes.

Does it really matter? No

Josh

Ummm ... well ... we basically just said the same thing.

First off, I am a musical snob

But that aside, I listen mostly to rock, play mostly rock, love rock and would never consider it a "lesser artform" so I think you're defensive post is a bit ill-founded.

But the fact is, today's commercial music is rock/pop and they aren't looking for "musicians", they are looking for exhibitionists. You say that you love rock. Great! Me too! But let me ask you this. How much of that rock that you love do you hear on commercial radio (and I mean daily programming for the masses)? How much of it do you hear mentioned in the same sentence with words like "Grammy?" I'm guessing probably very little.

Rock and pop is saturated with mimics because rock and pop is saturated with people who would rather be "rock stars" than musicians. Occasionally the two meet, of course, but that is not the norm. That doesn't diminish the passions behind rock music, it just diminishes the passions behind most commercial music.

Glenn

Sometimes ... that's exactly what it means.

In principle I agree with you. But for every popular musical shredder out there, there are probably at least a hundred disciples who haven't a musical bone in there body. So sometimes the more involved message is indeed "musical." But sometimes it's just masturbation.