Music theory, musicianship and exposure in relation to technical music

[Mt 5:16]

Man, this is some thought-provoking stuff!!

I used to play thrash metal in the 80's during Ron's S.A. Slayer days, and now I play bass at church, so I guess that means I'm a musician (barely). In fact, I'm probably the worst musician on this board (including JimBob, who say's he doesn't even play an instrument). I can't read music and I know very little theory. And I love SSOTC!! (Actually, my theory knowledge probably quintupled after getting that CD). What I find is that there is a huge gap between my playing proficiency and my listening interest. I could never play anything technically challenging, but I totally love listening to it. I guess folks who like technical stuff hate being bored. I mean, why drag all the equipment from place to place only to play a few notes and not even use all the strings and frets?

Fragility hit it right on - "People listen to music for different reasons and get different things out of it." For me, it's like sports - we like to watch athletes who have incredible talent and skills, but who wants to watch someone who's very average or no good? If the music world worked like the sports world, Ron would be a millionaire and Limp Bizkit would all be working 2 jobs.

 

[sands of the seas]

Do you think that in order to be a good or great guitarist you have to have "over the top" technique? In other words say you don't have the greatest knowledge of chords or can't play blazing fast scales, can you still "master" the instrument?

I'm not sure if anybody can master an instrument. People play to the ability they want or need to play at. The way i see things, creativity is far more important than being able to play at crazy speeds or do insane sweeps, tapping patterns etc (guitar talk here obviously). I'll use a couple of examples. Yngwie Malmsteen and Adam Jones (of Tool). Malmsteen is a very precise player. Very clean sweeps, effortless lightning fast shredding, yet all his songs sound the same. Adam Jones can't do any of that stuff, as he has admitted himself, yet i still consider Jones to be a far better guitarist than Malmsteen because he's so creative.

There's a huge difference between being technical and being progressive, although sometimes they go hand in hand. The top progressive musicians, the ones who push boundaries and forge new sounds, are usually closer to mastering an instrument than those who can simply play with fantastic skill. If they can do both, great, but creativity is top priority for me.

Maybe creativity is what stops some people from venturing off into other kinds of music. Perhaps they hear a band like Spastic Ink and think "woah, no thanks, this is too much for me" because they've never heard that sort of thing before, rather than simply not 'understanding' it.
I remember when i first got into death metal. Nile was probably one of the first, if not the first proper death metal band i heard, and i hated it! Even after i had gotten used to the growling in Opeth i just couldn't stand the sound Nile created. Blast beats everywhere, i couldn't make out what the guitars were doing, and the vocals were so deep and indecipherable i couldn't even listen to a whole song. Now Nile are one of my favourite bands.
What i'm getting at is maybe at first, new music seems odd and bad to those who haven't heard it before. Once you give it a chance though and finally swallow it you begin to see it in a different light.

So instead of this being a problem with technicality and musical ignorance, maybe it's more to do with how 'far out' the music is from a person's usual comfort zone. Think about it, pop and punk has had a long time to evolve. People are used to it. They're used to songs being focused on singing with simple instrumentation. Being thrown into a world of dizzying musicianship where vocals are not the main focus is a different experience. Metal is still quite young, and technical metal even younger. Maybe it's an evolution thing. Well, i'm just brainstorming

 

[Taedium Vitae]

I'd say no one's come close to mastering the electric guitar yet. It's still a young instrument. The most technically proficient electric guitarist you can imagine will not be close to as "good" as the most technically proficient violinist, pianist or, yes, maybe drummer (I believe the modern drums have been explored more than the electric guitar actually) to take a few examples. There's still a long way to go, and that's kind of exciting.

When it comes to pure technique, I'd say I probably hold Ron (I'm not saying that to be sycophantic) and Allan Holdsworth highest of those I've heard. Two different styles, but both dudarifficos are very precise and play ridiculously cleanly and seemingly completely effortless. John McLaughlin? Hmm, maybe, yeah.

But Allan... he's just from another world. I'd have to give the nod to him when it comes to phrasing and note/tone control. I'm sure Ron will think I'm being ridiculous for mentioning him together with Allan hehe. Pistols at dawn!

I'll refrain from discussing Green Day, Ramones and the Sex Pistols, thankyouverymuch.

 

[ronjarz]

It's really cool to see lots of people joining in on this discussion...


I’ve been wanting to jump in to this for a while now, and with the mention of Alan Holdsworth (uuhh, let’s not compare me to the master, PLEASE!!! LOL…), I thought now would be an appropriate time to express my thoughts.

First off, there are some composers that claim that they don’t what they are doing theoretically in their music, yet they are VERY progressive. This baffles the crap out of me. I’m talking about some guys that are mindboggling. I experienced a lot of this on the Marty Friedman tours last year. Of all of the killer guitarist that I got the chance to talk to and perform with, only Alex Skolnick knows what he is doing theoretically. Marty Friedman, who uses the most wackiest scales and arpeggios in his solos doesn’t know what he’s doing theoretically. Chris Poland doesn’t read music either, and I’ve heard that neither does Holdsworth. I asked Alan about this backstage in Baltimore and he didn’t give me a straight answer, but he pulled up this chart with some notes and figures…

http://www.spasticink.com/alan1.jpg
http://www.spasticink.com/alan2.jpg

so I can only assume that he’s got some crazy note invention that he uses when composing. He’s totally got a unique way of writing, and that would only makes sense that he’s dreamed up his own theoretical way of thinking. Chris Poland and Ohm write some unbelievable, killer tunes, and I honestly don’t know how they do it without any knowledge of music theory.

I also listen to a lot of fimscores, and one of my favorites ever is Danny Elfman. I’ve sat down and transcribed lots of sections of his scores, and it’s baffling. Theoretically, barely any of it makes sense. Notes come out of nowhere, yet it all finds its way into the piece of music. And yes, a good friend of mine actually visited the Elfman household last year, and Mr. Elfman claimed that he didn’t know what he was doing theoretically in his compositions. I find that very hard to believe.


And onto another subject in this thread…

About people not being able to “get” bands like Spastic Ink because it’s a bit over their head, I think one way to look at that is to make a comparison with the English language. I often read about where some normal music listener claims that technical/progressive bands are making deliberate attempts to be technical.

I actually think it takes more of an attempt to always write in 4/4. Seriously. The way I write (and I’m sure lots of others too) is I come up with a pattern or scheme of notes, put rests if I hear them that way, then when the phrase is over, it might take 7 counts, 5 counts, or whatever to come back around to reset at count 1. If you always write in 4/4 you have to chop off or add a number of notes because the phrase needs to take up 4, 8, 12 or 16 counts.

But back to the English language. In this post, I have used the words “appropriate”, “deliberately”, “unique”, “comparison”, “theoretically”, “transcribed”, and “knowledge”. Right? To those reading this, I’m just using normal, everyday words. Right? Did any of you think I was trying to impress anybody?? Hopefully not…

Well, show this post to a 2nd grader and he/she might claim that I’m trying to sound technical.

Ron

 

[fragility]

Once again, everyone's making some great points. Particularly your points sands of the sea about what you're used to and experiencing new music. I think that for people who play an instrument, it's probably a good thing that most of them dont get into overly technical stuff too early, they'd probably end up getting really frustrated.

And Ron, I really do put you up there with Holdsworth as one of the greatest, I have you two, and probably Jason Becker for pure technique it's mindboggling to think what he might have achieved! And after seeing that pic I can imagine a great future career for you as a comedy duo, haha - I wish my computer at work wasn't so slow or I'd have that as my desktop background

Anywho, complete sidetrack here. For me being 'progressive' and 'technical' are not about playing super fast solos, they are about trying new things, doing interesting and complex things compositionally and just making stuff that rules

 

[Taedium Vitae]

Haha those two Allan pics are priceless. I really suck at theory but I know some of what he did. He did actually try to teach himself common theory as a youngster (his dad was a guitarist) but he didn't really like it, and stubborn as he is, he decided to figure it all out himself. He approached it mathematically and built scales as permutations of all possible notes, discarding all apparently useless scales containing more than 3 consecutive chromatic notes and compiled a list, naming them himself and then use these to build chords out of. It's weird. I can't get my head around it at all, but then again I'm too old and decrepit to even teach me proper vanilla theory. The only thing I'm halfway decent at understanding is rhythm theory; polyrhythmics (not polymetrics, although that's nice too) being my favourite thingy, but enough about me.

I agree that 4/4 is a tricky signature to write for. I never consciously write anything in odd meters, but for kicks, when I'm done, I usually go through to see what I did, and it's rarely in 4/4. It's DIFFICULT making something groove in 4/4. 7/8 is MUCH easier. Hell, 19/16 has one hell of an intrinsic groove. All those 11+/16th sigs, when in a quarters+16ths pulse (like for example aforementioned 19/16: 4/4+3/16) groove like MAD.

 

[juicerino]

man this discussion has gotten pretty sweet. i didnt mean to be a jerk about the gordian knot, DT thing, and im not saying it was taken that way, understanding that its only my opinion, and people certainly listen to music for different reasons. additionally, i really like alot of the members of Gordian Knot but im not always happy with how they make music, its kinda like (and this'l be offensive again) liking all the members of Asia, but not being able to listen to it. its good when one can suppress elitist tendencies and induldge in some epic neo-prog, i just cant do it with a genre that is so close to my heart. and as far as exclusivisity and exposure to music ive tried my hardest to make sure i hear all kinds of stuff. i dig weather report, talking heads, peter gabriel, steely dan, and i totally love alan holdsworth stuff, especially the live I.O.U stuff in the early eighties, that guy is ridiculous on so many levels. also, i think who ever made the comment about mastery of the instrument as being very important, and comparing it to sports is basically right (especially in my book), yet in the world of music it is different in the fact that songwriting does not require technical mastery, and i think many normal musicians have made me pretty pumped about songs that are just well done in ways other than time changes, complex structures, and hard-to-play parts: ie. peter gabriel or david byrne. those guys are not instrument masters. but i like 'em. its also nice to see musicians like tony levin and adrian belew in the eighties incarnation of king crimson use their awesome talents in a setting where songs are not as complicated but require effort in other areas of dynamics and tastefulnes. however, i will always love a group who combines all elements of technical prowess with songwriting, structure, complexity, dynamicism, and heavy as fuck riffs. like uh........spastic ink! thanks for being awesome Ron!

 

[Taedium Vitae]

Personally, I abhor any parallels drawn between music and sports. In part because sports are completely useless and horrible to me and do not tickle my brain, but also because music — both the "product", if you will, and the performance — shouldn't be a competition.

 

[juicerino]

yeah, i kinda agree. i actually hate guitar solos, drum solos, etc. i probably shouldnt have agreed with that dude, but i do abhor hacks and no talent ass clowns getting popular. i also dont like Tool. and as for the crazy malmstein v. jones comparison. whoa!

 

[Metropolis Part 2]

@fragility- That is true, for anyone who wants to learn how to write music. Writing music has to be one of the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. First, when I tried to write all "technically" and such I found that it was really hard. I attempted to write in 8/4 or 9/5 before I put my base as Ron put it. Now I'm much more careful, learning Music Theory for me is key to writing some good notes. And Also I can play some extremely complicated notes that about 6 months ago I could not even IMAGINE playing. Practicing your methods really REALLY matter.

 

[sands of the seas]

and as for the crazy malmstein v. jones comparison. whoa!

I was merely trying to pick good examples for what i was trying to say. Malmsteen having superb skill but no creativity, and Jones having no skill but tons of creativity (the word 'no' may be an exaggeration ). It's my way of explaining that i take creativity over skill.

Anyway i know what you guys are saying about not consciously writing in odd time signatures. As i've progressed with my writing in recent times i've started to write a riff or a lick or whatever without giving the time signature any thought. Turns out i can write in obscure time signatures when writing this way, which i never thought i could do before.
It's the similar with the formula side of theory, but with that i wouldn't be able to say what scale i was using neither first nor last, unless it was a major scale
So i guess even some of us do write music in ignorance, yet we still manage to find at least some sort of technicallity/complexity. Again, i don't mean to sound like i'm lumping myself in with the likes of Friedman.
Even so, i think when people start composing music they gain some sort of understanding/appreciation for complexity and creativity even if they do not fully understand what's going on. That's not to say people who don't compose or even play can't have the same appreciation, it's just a different kind of appreciation.

 

[Taedium Vitae]

This quote might be some food for thought, or not:

"We must agree that the beauty of a work of art will always remain a mystery, in other words, we can never be absolutely sure 'how it's made.' We must at all costs preserve this magic which is peculiar to music and to which, by its nature, music is of all arts the most receptive." — Claude Debussy

Or something. Yadda yadda.

 

[sands of the seas]

I think that pretty much sums it up. Very nice quote!

 

[fragility]

Damn it, that was a cool discussion then that quote killed it, hehe

As a related topic, which I've recently been discussing. To you, what is a musician?

 

[sands of the seas]

To you, what is a musician?

Somebody who creates music. They don't have to know any theory at all, or have amazing chops, as long as they are creating music with an instrument they are a musician in my eyes.

 

[Metropolis Part 2]

@sand of the seas- We have our reasons for writting music but the biggest one is LOVING THE MUSIC

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

But back to the English language. In this post, I have used the words “appropriate”, “deliberately”, “unique”, “comparison”, “theoretically”, “transcribed”, and “knowledge”. Right? To those reading this, I’m just using normal, everyday words. Right? Did any of you think I was trying to impress anybody?? Hopefully not…

Well, show this post to a 2nd grader and he/she might claim that I’m trying to sound technical.

Ron

That's probably the best response in talking about "technical" music I've seen. Don't know if I would bring that up in debating "real" music with someone who thinks it's stupid, though....^_^

 

[sands of the seas]

@sand of the seas- We have our reasons for writting music but the biggest one is LOVING THE MUSIC

You're absolutely right:Spin:

 

[sands of the seas]

But back to the English language. In this post, I have used the words “appropriate”, “deliberately”, “unique”, “comparison”, “theoretically”, “transcribed”, and “knowledge”. Right? To those reading this, I’m just using normal, everyday words. Right? Did any of you think I was trying to impress anybody?? Hopefully not…

Well, show this post to a 2nd grader and he/she might claim that I’m trying to sound technical.

Actually i've just noticed how true this point is.
I notice that whenever i start to talk about things in a philosophical context i usually fall into this writing style where i tend to use words i don't normally use in every day conversation. It's not a conscious thing, it's just a certain guise my writing takes on when i need to be accurate and integral in what i say.
Similarly, when i'm writing music, my writing seems to take on what is necessary for the context of a song, or how i feel at that moment.

 

[Gildamere]

I'm just curious as to how much music theory fans of Spastic Ink, Watchtower and technical music in general possess. Is it because you have knowledge in music theory that you can appreciate bands like this so much, or do you just find the music pleasant to listen to, without knowing anything about theory?
What about playing an instrument? Do you think the ability to play a particular instrument gives you some sort of insight into the music that allows you to enjoy it more than the average listener perhaps?
Or are there fans here who know neither any music theory nor how to play an instrument?

For me it's quite simple: I find technical music very appealing and pleasant (not kidding) to listen to. I don't have to go into music theory to enjoy technical stuff. I actually don't know much music theory (if any), aside from some very general stuff (major and minor scale and that's basically it). Oh wait, I'm pretty firm in signatures and all the rythmic stuff, but back to my point.
Most of the time I don't know what those guys are doing but I definitely appreciate their skills and knowledge AND I truly enjoy the music. No analysis, just how the music feels.

OK, OK, I play the bass, so that makes me a musician of sorts and it should give me a little more insight than the average listener has, but I don't care about HOW music is written/performed, I just care about the finished product.
Thus, I don't think it's that important to "get" the music. It can enhance the experience, of course, but it is not a must, IMO.

And writing complex pieces of music does not necessarily require expert knowledge in theory. I used to be in a fusion jazz band and all of us weren't that big in theory, except for one of us, but we were all equally involved in the writing process. So we just did things that sounded good and worried about theory later. We did a LOT of playing by ear and it somehow worked out. Oh and we just improvised the solos, otherwise we had fully written parts.

I'm not saying that theory is not important but it should be a tool in accomplishing things, not the only reason to write a song. Music is not about what you CAN do, but what you SHOULD do to express yourself.

Am I making any sense here?