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

[Blumlein 88]

My own lack of technical ability irritates me constantly . . .

But to echo other comments, I don't believe there is some magic equation of greater ability equals better music. There are some artists where the music is greater than the sum of its parts, so to speak, and I have a double take and think, "How do they get away with that?". Perhaps knowing how to produce something worthwhile within your limitations is a type of genius, too.

Two classical guitarists I admire are Julian Bream and John Williams. When they collaborated in the 1970s, Bream commented that he had a hard time keeping up with Williams who is a technical monster. But then I've heard someone say that listening to Williams is like listening to an accountant play the guitar.

Two of my guitar favorites as well. Don't agree with the accountant statement on Williams however.

 

[ernestcarl]

Sometimes the lack of technical ability can be exploited as a form of amusment/entertainment instead:

I am not a musician myself, so my own bar is much lower.

 

[RayDunzl]

Autotune.

(Although I did like this)

 

[bogart]

Autotune.

(Although I did like this)

Rick Beato (excellent YouTube channel!) is an excellent source of entertainment and education. He makes a great distinction between people with incredible instincts and those with excellent training and skill. For example, he points out that Kurt Cobain is an incredibly melody writer, and works within his technical limitations really well. In "Smells Like Teen Spirit" the guitar solo is basically a recapitulation of the melody - a perfect choice for a guitar solo.

For me, I reach for the skip button when an act is outside either of these overlapping spheres of "excellent innate/intutive" and "technically skilled and theoretically deep" - that's when it gets boring and bland to me. Nearly all of my favorite bands have virtuosity from one or the other camp, and sometimes both.

In composed music, I am with the folks who find boring interpretations far more distracting than less technically proficient ones. By contrast, Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique has never recorded something that I'd not listen to happily - never a dull note! I can still enjoy a community orchestra playing something imperfectly if they can keep it together and give it a sense of performance and immediacy.

 

[Jimbob54]

I would imagine that the mindset when it comes to music here a ASR tends toward "if you like it, it's good; if you don't like it it's good for somebody else". Given that, 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? Been ruminating on this for thirty years-- really interested to hear any thoughts!

Its a good question. For me, the music I enjoy the most are records where the artist had a vision they clearly believed in (and I can get behind). The very best are where they achieved that vision. After that, we have the stuff that has the heart but perhaps not the competency to fully realise it on record , whether that be a failing of the band, the producer/ engineers or anywhere else down the chain.

A good melody never hurt though.

 

[Promit]

It depends. White Stripes drives my wife crazy due to Meg White's generally useless drumming. I've seen a lot of live performances, especially openers, where things were just way too much of a mess. I've also found a lot of electronic music where the synths are just ... not dialed in right, and are very annoying to listen to as a result.

 

[Robin L]

In composed music, I am with the folks who find boring interpretations far more distracting than less technically proficient ones. By contrast, Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique has never recorded something that I'd not listen to happily - never a dull note! I can still enjoy a community orchestra playing something imperfectly if they can keep it together and give it a sense of performance and immediacy.

As an example of the inverse of John Eliot Gardiner's orchestral efforts is the [in?]famous Josef Krips set of Beethoven's Nine Symphonies, recorded to 35mm tape in good sound for the era, but with sloppy playing and practically no interpretive oversight.

 

[dasdoing]

I can roughly put the music I listen to in 2 categories:
1) music to enjoy
2) music to party

list number 2 generaly has no virtuosos. I would call it "comunity music" or "regional music" (though I know that in Germany for example noone listens to local music anymore). energy is more important then composition/performance

 

[bogart]

As an example of the inverse of John Eliot Gardiner's orchestral efforts is the [in?]famous Josef Krips set of Beethoven's Nine Symphonies, recorded to 35mm tape in good sound for the era, but with sloppy playing and practically no interpretive oversight.

It takes a lot to rough up Beethoven - you've set me on a mission to hear this trainwreck now!

By the way, Gardiner's lightning-fast take on the 5th symphony is my favorite interpretation (and allegedly most faithful to the original tempo markings, which is mind-bending).

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Hmm interesting question.
Honestly, I am not versed enough with all instruments in order to hear many mistakes in the performances. I do hear them in Flutes and sometimes pianos (depending on how busy the music is), because I play *coughs* learn both instruments myself. It never bothered me if the rest of the performance is enjoyable.

Every flute player knows that occasionally you crack a note esp. in live settings.

Most vocals though make me go: "Oh man, just put a sock in it!". Far too many people feel the need to sing when their voice is pretty ... well... untrained and/or untalented.

I listen to instrumental music mostly.

 

[Robin L]

It takes a lot to rough up Beethoven - you've set me on a mission to hear this trainwreck now!

By the way, Gardiner's lightning-fast take on the 5th symphony is my favorite interpretation (and allegedly most faithful to the original tempo markings, which is mind-bending).

Krips didn't rough Beethoven up, JEG & Company did, in a good way. Krips and the LSO threw some cornstarch into the sauce, everything is smoothed over and slowed down.

 

[dasdoing]

unfortunatly classic music is performed lifeless nowadays. check this video

performances back then had much more "swing", more life. almost like popular music. And I am sure this music would be more popular if "played more popular". most performances nowadays are so heavie

 

[LTig]

I have problems when a singer is out of tune (unintentionaly) or a musician can't keep the correct pace. Mostly I see this in live recordings on youtube since a CD often is fixed in post processing. However I notice those flaws much better when listening to a recording than when experienced live.

 

[StevenEleven]

Great topic!!

I've read that the Beatles could not generally read and write music in a formal sense and their recording artist peers were underwhelmed by their technical ability on their instruments. Obviously, to me at least, though, there are other more fundamental musical gifts than technical ability, and the Beatles' singing (except for perhaps Ringo), including harmonizing, and songwriting and musical creativity, depth and curiosity were of the astonishing world-class talent variety. You can hear it on the things they do on their instruments, even if it doesn't sound that difficult, it was immensely creative, tuneful, and unique. The pinnacle of all that would be Abbey Road and Sgt. Peppers, IMHO, and then you've got the White Album, Rubber Soul, and Revolver.

OTOH on a more pedestrian level there is a degree of technical competence that is okay or fine for live music but is just not going to cut it for recorded music. I would say even most professional musicians who are competent to play a live gig will show too many rough edges for recorded music. I can easily get into a mediocre group that plays with good feeling live, but in a recording it's all got to move up a few notches to make it, IMHO.

 

[RayDunzl]

I would say even most professional musicians who are competent to play a live gig will show too many rough edges for recorded music.

 

[LTig]

I needed more...

And found it.

Aaaargh. Couldn't stand this for 1 minute.

 

[Guermantes]

I needed more...

And found it.

Championed by Frank Zappa!

Outsider art and music is valued precisely because it has some truly sui generis quality that doesn't conform to normal ideas of competency in matters of technique or psychology.

 

[dasdoing]

Great topic!!

I've read that the Beatles could not generally read and write music in a formal sense and their recording artist peers were underwhelmed by their technical ability on their instruments. Obviously, to me at least, though, there are other more fundamental musical gifts than technical ability, and the Beatles' singing (except for perhaps Ringo), including harmonizing, and songwriting and musical creativity, depth and curiosity were of the astonishing world-class talent variety. You can hear it on the things they do on their instruments, even if it doesn't sound that difficult, it was immensely creative, tuneful, and unique. The pinnacle of all that would be Abbey Road and Sgt. Peppers, IMHO, and then you've got the White Album, Rubber Soul, and Revolver.

OTOH on a more pedestrian level there is a degree of technical competence that is okay or fine for live music but is just not going to cut it for recorded music. I would say even most professional musicians who are competent to play a live gig will show too many rough edges for recorded music. I can easily get into a mediocre group that plays with good feeling live, but in a recording it's all got to move up a few notches to make it, IMHO.

I was thinking about mentioning Beatles before your comment. let's be honest, a better high school band with the same production they had could perform like this. the compositions were very very simplistic, too...but, and that's the secret, they were catchy...very catchy

 

[Spocko]

Occasionally, yes.

First I should say that a lack of technical proficiency per se doesn't bother me at all. It all depends on what type of music it produces and whether I like it or not.

But I have noticed that, though I love prog rock, my interest really tends to start, I dunno, roughly around '75 and beyond I guess. Before that it was like prog musicians and rock musicians were still getting a handle on their instruments, exploring what they could do, but not reaching technical proficiency, and being sort of limited by that as well. So for instance I can't bear to listen to endless jam sessions of rock or prog bands in the later 60's/early 70's because it just seems so limited...just tons of noodling that may have been mind-blowing for the time, but which I find tedious.
For prog, early Genesis, King Crimson etc - pass, later stuff, bring it on. And in 60's pop lots of the guitar playing and solos seem to me almost hilariously constrained in technique, like the guitarists can just barely get through the solo.

Oh, and passing diss: Carlos Santana is the single most over-rated "guitar God." Yeah, he has a "feel" or a "sound," but his technique seems so restricted that releative to other great guitarists, it's like watching someone eking out solos in the late stages of arthritis. So he just chooses a spot on the guitar, a few notes to bend around "with feel." Not enough, for me.

Agreed.

Rick Beato (excellent YouTube channel!) is an excellent source of entertainment and education. He makes a great distinction between people with incredible instincts and those with excellent training and skill. For example, he points out that Kurt Cobain is an incredibly melody writer, and works within his technical limitations really well. In "Smells Like Teen Spirit" the guitar solo is basically a recapitulation of the melody - a perfect choice for a guitar solo.

For me, I reach for the skip button when an act is outside either of these overlapping spheres of "excellent innate/intutive" and "technically skilled and theoretically deep" - that's when it gets boring and bland to me. Nearly all of my favorite bands have virtuosity from one or the other camp, and sometimes both.

In composed music, I am with the folks who find boring interpretations far more distracting than less technically proficient ones. By contrast, Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique has never recorded something that I'd not listen to happily - never a dull note! I can still enjoy a community orchestra playing something imperfectly if they can keep it together and give it a sense of performance and immediacy.

Speaking of grunge, I have found that grunge bands generally avoid guitar solos, but I've always wondered if it was due to limited soloing skills or rather a statement against the over-solo'd 80's metal sound where literally every rock song in the 80's had to have a guitar solo to get radio play.

 

[Spocko]

I was thinking about mentioning Beatles before your comment. let's be honest, a better high school band with the same production they had could perform like this. the compositions were very very simplistic, too...but, and that's the secret, they were catchy...very catchy

That's the billion dollar question: artists that have a knack for catchy melodies and riffs are so rare. It's hard enough to compose a "one hit wonder" in one's lifetime, but album after album of catchy tunes? Unbelievable.