Interesting point

[Aural Night]

I was listening to Moon this morning, a song came up, I liked it, clicked the cover to check comments at Amazon.com and found this:

"I love prog but a lot of the time groups sacrifice texture and creativity for technically impressive shows of force"

The comment wasn't meant to any band particular, but more like a general opinion. I very much agree with this point. When the technicalities become more important than the musical content, then something is lost. That's one reason I find it hard to like some bands, no matter how well they play. I refrain myself from mentioning any band names, lest this becomes just another flame thread.

Any comments..opinions..?

Cheers,
Miika

http://www.auralnight.com

[roger]

I'm not disagreeing, but isn't that true of almost any art form? there will always be those that have amazing technical skills, but sometimes lack the inspiration for new creativity, and rely on those skills to carry the day. meeting the public's expectations can be a bitch. oh, and paying the bills.

[Aural Night]

Yes, guess you're right. It's hard for me, though, imagine a landscape painter or a sculptor, who is technically superb, yet produces bad works. But I'm sure it's possible. What I don't understand is how people seem to worship technically great musicians even though they produce soul-less music. Well, perhaps I should direct this critique towards some of my friends instead rambling about it here :).

Cheers,
Miika

http://www.auralnight.com

[roger]

well, imnsho, here's one example: Painter of Light (http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet)...

and some people don't have the skills to judge quality from technique. they just never learned.

[Andyyyy]

It can be a tough balance. John McLaughlin says to practice scales till you're tired of them, then forget about them. I suppose you can get your tech skills up to a certain level, and by forgetting about them on a concious level, you focus on the soul while your subconcious mind will work the technical details for you. I understand the concept, but I can't say I practice enough to have experienced it :-(

[roger]

> practice scales till you're tired of them

that wouldn't take me long!! :rofl:

[Yesspaz]

Yeah, I agree that there's a tendency for people with chops to showcase them to the detriment of the tune. BUT, neither do I like it when someone's focusing only on melody because they DON'T have chops. I remember Rick Wakeman saying his dad told him to make sure he got classical training, because that would give him the vocabulary to do anything he wanted to do. Chops for chops' sake is boring. But if you take someone with chops and someone without them, give them the same melody and get out of their way, often you'll find that the chops-one can do so much more with it simply because his range of expression is larger.

[roger]

no one is saying that technical skill is not important, and certainly, when coupled with inspiration, is where great art happens.

this article, has some interesting points about this thread's questions:
Kyle Gann (http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2006/07/american_romanticism_music_vs.html)

The American composers of those and even later generations - George Frederick Bristow (1825-1898), John Knowles Paine (1839-1906), George Whitefield Chadwick (1854-1931), Edward MacDowell (1860-1908). Horatio Parker (1863-1919) - were not of the same stature. They did not create a new artform. Their music is a pale imitation of the European aesthetic of their day. In vain one listens to their symphonies, tone poems, piano pieces, and string quartets, for a new feeling for melody, a new sense of form, a departure from Europe. They were timid. Their emphasis was not on a bold new beginning, but on a sense of correctness, a balance learned rather than created, and a desire to impress. At their very best - as in, say, Chadwick's string quartets - one finds an energetic smoothness, but even here the music seems to plead, "Look - I followed all the rules. Isn't that enough?" Absent is any creative spark, or even the tenderness of Heade's obsessive exploration of hummingbirds and exotic orchids. Their hulking climaxes are poorly calculated, and not even their adagios seem deeply felt.

I guess we're not the first ones to raise the question, eh? :D