Does a musician's lack of technical ability ever get in the way of your enjoyment?

[maverickronin]

Who are we to deem an artist's art to be sloppy?

A critic.

 

[Robin L]

A critic.

Or a lintpicker.

 

[Ivanovich]

Who are we to deem an artist's art to be sloppy?

I think it’s kind of self evident, like handwriting.

It’s personal though, and maybe a matter of training, skill or preference. I can hear a note that is a few cents out of tune, and I don’t like. Someone else may not even notice.

If a person doesn’t notice it’s sloppy, then it’s good enough for them and shouldn’t get in the way of the enjoyment.

For me a great example is Jimmy Page on Zepp’s The Song Remains The Same live album. Some of those guitar solos were played sloppily. But the energy of the music, the distortion on the guitar, the overall raw sound of the band make it OK. Most people don’t know and don’t care, there’s lots of energy and emotion there, it’s great overall. Would it have been better if he wasn’t so high and played cleaner? Maybe. There is such epic music in there that the flaws are acceptable on balance. If he wasn’t high or drunk or whatever, maybe it would have been less good overall.

Then there’s John Bonham. Is he metronome-like? No. Is he sloppy? No. He feels the music and speeds up and slows down as appropriate for his interpretation. He’s in control, it’s on purpose. He has that kind of timing and control to lay back or push at will.

Bill Wyman said “Well, every band follows the drummer, but the Stones don’t. Charlie follows Keith, and I fall somewhere in between.” (from interview in Geddy Lee’s Big Book of Bass). But Keith was on heroin and had poor timing, so the rhythm is jacked. I guess he was the band leader or paying the bills and in charge or something. To me, it’s just not good performance.

When musicians don’t have technical proficiency, they can’t make the instrument do what they want it to, and the music won’t be renderer as well as from a musician who has better mastery of his craft.

 

[Alexanderc]

What you are saying about Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique makes me really curious to hear their stuff. What would you recommend?

 

[MRC01]

... some bands that have technically great players produce music that is boring to me, and other bands have a lack of technical competence that keeps me from enjoying their stuff. Has anyone else thought about this over the years? ...

As this discussion has generalized from bands to all music, I'll relate a few points related to classical music.

A few years ago, Pinchas Zuckerman was playing Franck's famous sonata at Benaroya in Seattle, when he produced a loud squeak instead of a note on his violin. He stopped playing, then the pianist stopped, he gave his violin a dirty look, made a visible sigh, adjusted the violin, then they continued. That obviously broke the flow of the music, though it was worth the ticket price just to see something so rare. Overall it was a great performance and I was surprised to find that didn't change how he played the rest of the piece.

Some music is so technically difficult that the music's artistry is frequently obscured by the performer's limitations, and some musicians avoid these pieces entirely. Liszt's transcendental etudes S 139 are one example, among others. Listen to Arrau, then to Berman or Berezovsky, for a night & day contrast. Arrau was a wonderful pianst but his technical chops were never fully up to that work; very few pianists were or are.

 

[Alexanderc]

I am told (I am too young to have experienced it first hand) that people complained decades ago that Herbert von Karajan as he got older was so focused on perfection that his performances lacked life. I can’t say if is true or not, but it shows that people have been thinking about these sorts of things for a long time.

 

[MRC01]

I really enjoy local performances from skilled amateurs. When it comes to early & classical music, I wonder if this is more historically authentic than the polished, professional performances we often hear on CD. Music doesn't have to be perfect, in fact some kinds imperfections can enhance artistic expression. Today, professional musicians have a level of training and technical prowess that I suspect was virtually unknown from the renaissance through the 1800s.

There's an analogy to athletics. Today's athletes are not necessarily better than those from 100 years ago, but they have the benefit of modern medical sports science, nutrition and training.

 

[Feanor]

In response to the OP's question, "Does a musician's lack of technical ability ever get in the way of your enjoyment?" ...

Rarely. The reason for that is that I'm not a musician and have minimal musical training. Frankly a performance has to be pretty bad or OTOH superbly good for me to notice notice much different.

The difference certainly DO notice continually is excellent vs. mediocre vs. poor quality of recording.