Is technical ability everything?

blastingas10 · 11-30-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Is technical ability everything?

The short answer: no. A lot of great music has been created by people who are not particularly technically proficient. On the other hand, technical ability does open doors for musicians to express themselves in a wider variety of ways. Plus there are some styles of music which just simply do not work unless the person making the music is fairly skilled with their instrument. I would put everything from jazz to flamenco to classical to most types of metal in this category.

Nicely said.

I guess what I was trying to say is, just because somone is more technical doesn't make them the better overall musician. Joe Satriani is certainly more technical than Jimi Hendrix, but i don't think he is better than Hendrix. There's more to music than just technical ability. Music is an art, and creative ability is important to any art. Were some of Picasso's paintings the most technically and conventionally good? No. But there was something abstract and creative about his work that went beyond conventions. Some people would look at his art and a lot of other art, and say "what is this crap?" They are the people who lack imagination and fail to see beyond the conventional side of things.

Salami · 11-30-2011, 01:58 PM

I doubt really fast guitar playing would be appreciated for dance music. In some styles people want just a simple melody and a beat to move to.

**Janszoon** · 11-30-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Nicely said.

I guess what I was trying to say is, just because somone is more technical doesn't make them the better overall musician. Joe Satriani is certainly more technical than Jimi Hendrix, but i don't think he is better than Hendrix. There's more to music than just technical ability. Music is an art, and creative ability is important to any art. Were some of Picasso's paintings the most technically and conventionally good? No. But there was something abstract and creative about his work that went beyond conventions. Some people would look at his art and a lot of other art, and say "what is this crap?" They are the people who lack imagination and fail to see beyond the conventional side of things.

Pablo Picasso may not be the best comparison though because he actually was extremely skilled on a technical level. He's more the model of the highly creative artist whose skill level allowed him to express himself in a wide variety of ways. A better comparison might be Howard Finster, a self-taught painter of limited technical ability who nevertheless created some cool and distinctive artwork in his lifetime. Most people on MB would probably know him as the guy who painted the album cover for Talking Heads' Little Creatures.

blastingas10 · 11-30-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Pablo Picasso may not be the best comparison though because he actually was extremely skilled on a technical level. He's more the model of the highly creative artist whose skill level allowed him to express himself in a wide variety of ways. A better comparison might be Howard Finster, a self-taught painter of limited technical ability who nevertheless created some cool and distinctive artwork in his lifetime. Most people on MB would probably know him as the guy who painted the album cover for Talking Heads' Little Creatures.

That's true. But certainly he knew that there was more to art than just technical skill. You're right about technical skill allowing you to become more expressive. I find the Hendrix route to be more difficult. It's been easier for me to learn technical assets of the guitar than it was for me to just pick the instrument up and teach myself. I am self taught, but not really if you count the internet as a teacher, and it certainly is. Learning the technical side has allowed me to become more creative. And I find it to be pretty crazy that Hendrix taught himself and ended up being as good as he was.

tommycas · 11-30-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I'm mainly talking about guitar playing. I tend to think it's not everything. I value creativity more than technical ability. I think a technical guitar player is a lot easier to come by than a really creative and innovative one. You can find young kids on youtube who are pretty technical, but you won't find one who is as creative and innovative as Hendrix. Technical ability is something you can learn. Creative ability is something that you can't learn from a book or music theory.

What do you think?

I think it should always be about taste. The guitarist (and any musician in the band) using impeccable decision making skills throughout the song. Sometimes applied technical theory can get you out of a musical jam, and vice versa. Some of the best guys I played with knew no theory, just put their fingers anywhere on the fret board sounding good like a muthaf**k.

**Janszoon** · 11-30-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

That's true. But certainly he knew that there was more to art than just technical skill.

Absolutely. And for anyone who's curious about Picasso's technical abilities, take a gander at the painting below. He did this when he was just 14 years old:

blastingas10 · 11-30-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Absolutely. And for anyone who's curious about Picasso's technical abilities, take a gander at the painting below. He did this when he was just 14 years old:

WOW. That's amazing.

**Pedestrian** · 11-30-2011, 05:21 PM

No. Example: Kaki King. Technical wonder. Music has no soul.

hip hop bunny hop · 11-30-2011, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Were some of Picasso's paintings the most technically and conventionally good? No. But there was something abstract and creative about his work that went beyond conventions. Some people would look at his art and a lot of other art, and say "what is this crap?" They are the people who lack imagination and fail to see beyond the conventional side of things.

Gee, that's a wonderful way to frame a debate: "The are hip people who are able to think outside of the box, and there are boorish ****s who can't - only the latter would dislike Picasso."

On that note:

Quote:

Evelyn Waugh occasionally ended his letters by writing "Death to Picasso." His disdain for Picasso stemmed from a premodern anti-modernism--Waugh wanted a picture to convey a clear, universal meaning. Picasso's attack on pictorial order, which was indeed significant, called into question this myth of transparency in art. And, although Waugh's criticism of Picasso's "chaos and despair" sounds prissy and dated now, he made a very prescient observation: "You can not excuse Picasso by saying it is the message of the age and at the same time deny that the age is decadent." When one looks at Picasso's modernism now from the other end, it is indeed its decadence that is most striking. We replace old myths with new myths, and Pablo Picasso, the great "creator and destroyer" of our century, created myths that are as reprehensible as the ones he destroyed. And it is with a mix of schadenfreude and surprise that one watches those myths crumble, gradually revealing the remarkable mediocrity of Picasso's achievement.

LINK to Zing Magazine

&

Quote:

Sensitive and sophisticated people, who love art and defend civilisation, now greet each other with the following exchange: ‘Death to Picasso!’ ‘And long live John Singer Sargent!’

LINK to Takimag

Cenotaph · 11-30-2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Were some of Picasso's paintings the most technically and conventionally good? No. But there was something abstract and creative about his work that went beyond conventions. Some people would look at his art and a lot of other art, and say "what is this crap?" They are the people who lack imagination and fail to see beyond the conventional side of things.

Great! Now just apply this mode of thinking to music.

To be on topic, I'll go ahead and say I prefer creativity and innovation to technical ability. However, like Janszoon said earlier, technical ability can open doors for people when it comes to composing and playing music. It really just depends on the scenario.

11-30-2011, 05:21 PM	#28 (permalink)
Pedestrian Pedantic Bastard Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: BC Posts: 4,098	No. Example: Kaki King. Technical wonder. Music has no soul. __________________ FM RYM Crosswalking East India Youth AUTOTUNE THE UNICORN

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-30-2011, 01:58 PM	#22 (permalink)
Salami Get in ma belly Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 1,382	I doubt really fast guitar playing would be appreciated for dance music. In some styles people want just a simple melody and a beat to move to.