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

[Blumlein 88]

Agreed.

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.

I think it was the latter. A reaction against guitar solo overload in the 1980's which hung over music for about 15 years.

 

[ernestcarl]

Aaaargh. Couldn't stand this for 1 minute.

Well, I got through about three minutes before pressing stop. I was trying to hear if the lyrics had any underlying depth.

 

[Robin L]

I needed more...

And found it.

On the one hand, a species of slumming, cool because it's kinda downmarket. On the other hand, time takes time. This is a band I knew of by reputation, but for all that time, some 40 years or so, I never heard them. Meanwhile, all sorts of "Alternative" sounds have emerged since this LP came out. I can hear tributes to this asymmetrical song construction in all sorts of "Hip" Alt bands, Shonen Knife springs to mind. I can understand why Frank Zappa grooved to these sounds, this is really a lot more sophisticated rhythmically than I anticipated, everyone playing their own time signature without concern for anyone else's meter. The absolute inverse of "swing".

And now I have an impulse to rip my headphones off, always a good sign for the "avant-garde" stuff. This properly belongs in Captain Beefheart territory, but as performed by the "primative natives" in situ, said environment being in the garage down your suburban street. For your dancing and dining pleasure.

 

[bogart]

I think it was the latter. A reaction against guitar solo overload in the 1980's which hung over music for about 15 years.

Interesting. I would have said the opposite. I think grunge was the last stop for guitar solos before they stopped. Less of the excesses of the 80s, but of the top tier:

Pearl Jam - Mike McCreedy - top notch shredding
Alice in Chains - Jerry Cantrell - super heavy solos
Sound Garden - Kim Thayil are fairly obtuse solos but pretty hip
Nirvana - Kurt Cobain’s arguably the weakest solos but still wrote them into songs

I’d say this crop of bands was the last to properly write guitar solos in... they’re pretty much gone by the late 90s from mainstream.

 

[Blake Klondike]

Some people with limited ability I don't like, but some others I do, exactly the same as with people with high levels of ability. No way of knowing if it's the lack of ability that turns me off, or something else.
I like both of these...

The Daniel Johnston example is very solid-- genuine emotional content often makes other aspects of the writing/performance irrelevant to me.

 

[Blake Klondike]

I literally cannot go to a classical concert and not analyze every little detail of the performance. It’s what I do for a living and I can’t let it go. Recordings actually make it a lot easier for me to just listen and enjoy. Sometimes I don’t notice details, sometimes little issues just doesn’t bother me as much.

This is the part I think you were asking about: I would almost always prefer a performance with some deficiencies that also has a lot of energy and life. It’s a fine line because a technical problem or two can mess up an otherwise good performance. On the other hand, “perfection” for its own sake can be boring.

One of my music professors in college, a contemporary composer, said he went to a Bee Gees concert and after an hour was begging for a bad note, because everything was too perfectly in tune all night.

 

[raistlin65]

I literally cannot go to a classical concert and not analyze every little detail of the performance. It’s what I do for a living and I can’t let it go. Recordings actually make it a lot easier for me to just listen and enjoy. Sometimes I don’t notice details, sometimes little issues just doesn’t bother me as much.

This is the part I think you were asking about: I would almost always prefer a performance with some deficiencies that also has a lot of energy and life. It’s a fine line because a technical problem or two can mess up an otherwise good performance. On the other hand, “perfection” for its own sake can be boring.

That would seem a curse to me. I have a master's in literature, and during the second year of the program and for a year after my degree, I could not watch a movie without falling into critique mode. Made it impossible to suspend disbelief and enjoy anything that wasn't superbly well done.

Took a couple of years before that went away. I would hate to have a similar problem becoming immersed in music.

 

[dmorrow]

It could've been made into a monster if they all pulled together as a team

Who doesn't love The Shaggs though?

 

[Blake Klondike]

Give some particular examples

I never want to criticize anyone's taste in music, so hesitant to give examples. but, here's the first one to come to mind. i can recognize why this song is successful, and why people like it but this guitar playing is C- at best. this intro: poorly articulated notes, uneven strumming, unintentional dead strings, time moving around etc.

 

[pavuol]

I never want to criticize anyone's taste in music, so hesitant to give examples. but, here's the first one to come to mind. i can recognize why this song is successful, and why people like it but this guitar playing is C- at best. this intro: poorly articulated notes, uneven strumming, unintentional dead strings, time moving around etc.

"I never want to criticize anyone's taste in music" - decent

Well, after hearing this example (once) I can say I am indifferent to it, neither excited neither offended. I too can imagine why this can be relatable to some people. When I don't think too much a thing that comes to my mind is it sounds like it is played from your teenage fellows living next street who you go hang out with. So maybe to younger audience this can be far more attractive than if it was "too perfect/polished"..

I think answer to your question depends on many factors. Firstly, if the listener is a musician or not. From what you are writing I guess you are, so for you it is more of an isuue, that you tend to listen to music always with a bit of "analytics".
I'm not a musician, just a mortal consumer but IMO the other factor of more importance is if the particular song/artist is relatable in any way (emotionally, by lyrics, by personality etc.).

I will give some my personal examples:
Marina a.k.a. Marina and the Diamonds - I love her voice color, it's one of my favourite female voices. If I remember I stumbled first upon her music with Primadona song rotating on local radio (mass pop I know.. . I than searched more from her, enjoyed very much her first album as well and also digging more I had even found her first Myspace released EP - 'Mermaid vs. Sailor'. What I wanted to say, from a technical point of view, that may be a little catastrophy , (piano sounds like played by a kid and voice intonation is far from perfect, to be decent , but oh, it's still her, her voice color, and I feel many emotions and her personality in there. I would say a mixture of youthful vigor, childish naivete and some kind of melancholy too (besides mentioned voice color of course).
So one can forgive many many technical things, if there is some hook/relatability to it.
But one have to admit, she now sounds a "bit" better (one of my favourite from later songs - I'm a ruin / acoustic.

Other example (kind of opposite) - Dire straits - technically I think very good from the very first albums througout the whole discography (which I like very much), but again, some say Mark is not among the best singers out there (some less decent guy may say he's not even a singer , but do I care or does it bother me? hell no, never In fact I find it totally complementary to a whole package

Lastly I can remark, some time ago I had a listen to quite a bunch of "audiophile/reference" music compilations and I have to say, a ton of songs there while being absolutely perfect (excellent singers, players, recording, mastering and so on) left me totally unimpressed, I would say sterile lifeless music. I can think of Asians (China, S.Korea..), they have many "audiophile" female singers ("one chosen of millions"), technically flawless, with albums full of covers of western golden hits, but again, doesn't touch my heart even remotely

PS1: sorry for my English, don't know if all clear
PS2: tell if you are a pro musician and give some examples of your favourite music/songs/artists

 

[Blake Klondike]

I literally cannot go to a classical concert and not analyze every little detail of the performance. It’s what I do for a living and I can’t let it go. Recordings actually make it a lot easier for me to just listen and enjoy. Sometimes I don’t notice details, sometimes little issues just doesn’t bother me as much.

This is the part I think you were asking about: I would almost always prefer a performance with some deficiencies that also has a lot of energy and life. It’s a fine line because a technical problem or two can mess up an otherwise good performance. On the other hand, “perfection” for its own sake can be boring.

What is your work specifically? I have the same problem (I guess it's a problem?) in that I can never passively listen to anything. If there is music on, I am always analyzing on various levels. I saw a bonsai tree artist give a speech once where he said "Wherever there is a tree, I am never bored"

 

[Blake Klondike]

"I never want to criticize anyone's taste in music" - decent

Well, after hearing this example (once) I can say I am indifferent to it, neither excited neither offended. I too can imagine why this can be relatable to some people. When I don't think too much a thing that comes to my mind is it sounds like it is played from your teenage fellows living next street who you go hang out with. So maybe to younger audience this can be far more attractive than if it was "too perfect/polished"..

I think answer to your question depends on many factors. Firstly, if the listener is a musician or not. From what you are writing I guess you are, so for you it is more of an isuue, that you tend to listen to music always with a bit of "analytics".
I'm not a musician, just a mortal consumer but IMO the other factor of more importance is if the particular song/artist is relatable in any way (emotionally, by lyrics, by personality etc.).

I will give some my personal examples:
Marina a.k.a. Marina and the Diamonds - I love her voice color, it's one of my favourite female voices. If I remember I stumbled first upon her music with Primadona song rotating on local radio (mass pop I know.. . I than searched more from her, enjoyed very much her first album as well and also digging more I had even found her first Myspace released EP - 'Mermaid vs. Sailor'. What I wanted to say, from a technical point of view, that may be a little catastrophy , (piano sounds like played by a kid and voice intonation is far from perfect, to be decent , but oh, it's still her, her voice color, and I feel many emotions and her personality in there. I would say a mixture of youthful vigor, childish naivete and some kind of melancholy too (besides mentioned voice color of course).
So one can forgive many many technical things, if there is some hook/relatability to it.
But one have to admit, she now sounds a "bit" better (one of my favourite from later songs - I'm a ruin / acoustic.

Other example (kind of opposite) - Dire straits - technically I think very good from the very first albums througout the whole discography (which I like very much), but again, some say Mark is not among the best singers out there (some less decent guy may say he's not even a singer , but do I care or does it bother me? hell no, never In fact I find it totally complementary to a whole package

Lastly I can remark, some time ago I had a listen to quite a bunch of "audiophile/reference" music compilations and I have to say, a ton of songs there while being absolutely perfect (excellent singers, players, recording, mastering and so on) left me totally unimpressed, I would say sterile lifeless music. I can think of Asians (China, S.Korea..), they have many "audiophile" female singers ("one chosen of millions"), technically flawless, with albums full of covers of western golden hits, but again, doesn't touch my heart even remotely

PS1: sorry for my English, don't know if all clear
PS2: tell if you are a pro musician and give some examples of your favourite music/songs/artists

Thanks for this-- very interesting perspective. I am also excited to listen to the Marina examples you posted and see how they relate. I think you are tapping into precisely the question I am exploring with your analysis of her songs.

Here is a great example of a technically inept guitarist whose stuff has literally changed the face of music, and millions of lives:

His guitar is not in tune, he is strumming up when he is supposed to be strumming down, his rhythm is weak, etc. Just one problem after another. I can't stand to listen to it because his playing is bad enough that I can't become immersed in the song. I would much rather hear Leadbelly do it.

But he was the perfect guitar player for Nirvana, which is all his job required of him. I know a bunch of people who saw them play in my home town before they hit it big and they all said it was the most powerful concert experience of their lives.

This Ry Cooder song would be an example of someone doing a similar thing, but in a way that appeals to me a lot more:

I am a professional guitarist/songwriter/teacher, so I get to engage with this stuff every day.

 

[Blake Klondike]

Occasionally, yes.

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.

Sorry, not sure if I know how to quote a part of your post-- I think this is 100% true and a totally fascinating artifact of the way rock music developed. When the early rock guitarists were making records, they could only be so "good" because they were young and had limited influences. Like, "You Really Got Me" by The Kinks is great, but it is not heavy by today's standards. It's like the Model T of heavy guitar.

Also, that limited technical ability produced an endearing sound sometimes that I really like-- though it doesn't change the fact that the guitarists didn't have much to work with yet in the soloing department. Couple examples:

John Simon, the producer of this record, says that the players on this record were so green that they could just barely get the album cut and had to fake a lot of it. But I love the intensity of the soloing on there.

Roger McGuinn's pseudo-sitar business on here is great too:

He is clearly just moving his fingers around fast with no clear conception of what is about to come out, but the effect is great. And imaging what Chet Atkins or Wes Montgomery or some LA studio guy would have done here-- it just wouldn't be the same. So sometimes a lack of ability can create charming sounds

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.

Have you heard "Love, Devotion and Surrender" that he did with John McLaughlin? He plays his ass off on there, because he had been hanging with the Mahavishnu guys and stuff. But if you listen to him interviewed even a couple years later, like in 76, he says he can't access why that music moved him anymore. He feels like he was playing way too many notes, and that it was a more interesting challenge to learn to express yourself with just a few notes than to play fast.

 

[pjug]

I really like his records but I saw him play solo like this and it was painful. Some people just need to have a band.

 

[Blake Klondike]

There is a limit for me

Wow. Thanks for sharing this-- very extreme example of what I am talking about. I don't know anything about that guy, but everything he says is stupid and he sounds pathetic. I don't know why they would even invite him into that room. I truly don't get it-- they could have paid all those dudes to back up a musician. Music is important, and a thing that people spend their whole lives learning to do-- it is not a joke. It is insulting that he would show up at that pianist's house under those circumstances. It is overtly disrespectful of all the hard work and struggle that of that legit pianist. He should have just kicked him out of his house, instead of having a conversation with him.

I find everything about that baffling and irritating, although it is on SubPop which might explain a lot. They have always had a stream of fake iconoclasm in some of their releases.

 

[Blake Klondike]

It's a great question. There are bands that play regularly on my stereo where there's no denying the shortcoming of certain talents: Ramones, Sex Pistols, even Tragically Hip with apologies to my Canadian friends (they play here infrequently).

Those can be thoroughly enjoyed whereas some technically proficient players have never found a place in my heart: Malmsteen, Dweezil, and I've never admitted this to anyone but, despite my love of Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Mike Campbell has never grabbed me.

And then again people trashtalk Lars as a player but I find the drumming in Metallica a really interesting component (his personality and persona are another matter).

Edit: So for me, sometimes!...

That is really interesting that you would say that about the Tragically Hip. I have taught several of their songs recently and I noticed that the guitar player/singer was the worst musician in the band. They seem to have built everything around his writing though, and the finished product is definitely cool. I agree about Mike Campbell too-- he is a total utility player. His parts are often totally generic. His stuff is cool, but makes me wonder what Tom Petty would have sounded like if he had had players with real personality backing him up...

 

[Chrispy]

Can't say that's been an issue for me particularly. The soul/heart/emotion of the music matters more than the execution sometimes I suppose. I do prefer I suppose those who can execute both well generally. I listened a bit to the Dispatch/Bangbang thing you posted, but nothing was very attractive about it (and they're successful? never heard of them). The talking/singing was most offputting.

 

[waynel]

Wow. Thanks for sharing this-- very extreme example of what I am talking about. I don't know anything about that guy, but everything he says is stupid and he sounds pathetic. I don't know why they would even invite him into that room. I truly don't get it-- they could have paid all those dudes to back up a musician. Music is important, and a thing that people spend their whole lives learning to do-- it is not a joke. It is insulting that he would show up at that pianist's house under those circumstances. It is overtly disrespectful of all the hard work and struggle that of that legit pianist. He should have just kicked him out of his house, instead of having a conversation with him.

I find everything about that baffling and irritating, although it is on SubPop which might explain a lot. They have always had a stream of fake iconoclasm in some of their releases.

He’s good at other stuff.

 

[Guermantes]

Jazz pianist Tommy Flanagan apparently struggled with the mediant progressions in Coltrane's "Giant Steps". I find this analysis surprising because chromatic mediants are the lingua franca of Romantic piano music. Perhaps they are just tough to improvise over.

 

[Blake Klondike]

The Sex Pistols almost had to be technically marginal to fit the whole gestalt their music was about.

I've seen interviews of John Fogerty of Creedance Clearwater Revival talk about how limited he was on guitar, but wanted to get the feelings out with his music. How hard he had to work to get good music being a not even mediocre musician. He seemed dumb founded when he heard other guitarists praise his sparse impeccable style of guitar playing. Sometimes necessity creates artistry via the limitations.

OTOH, lack of technical ability can get me very angst ridden when it is someone I'm trying to record. I prefer doing one organic take. Not patching 15 mistakes per minute of music. Often I feel the mistake here and there doesn't harm the music while I understand the musician can never un-hear it and cringes to his soul to think it will be recorded for posterity evermore with the mistakes in it.

Great thoughts-- one thing that separates Fogerty from others we might discuss is that he worked really hard to get good enough to express the ideas he wanted to express. When it came to early rock, blues, Bakersfield stuff, he really, really worked at it. I would not have thought of him as a limited guitarist at all, which is interesting. Similarly, I have seen Robbie Krieger from The Doors say that he is the perfect guitarist for The Doors but hopeless at anything else, because all he can play are the parts he composed for those songs. And he sounds really good and creative on those records.

RE: musicians fixing takes, I know exactly what you are talking about-- once on a session 20 years ago, I spent an hour trying to get a fingerstyle intro "right" (at $50/hr) so I could just go on and play the rest of the song in one take and I kept stopping over and over. When I go back and listen now, the first or second would have been great. Recording is definitely a different skill, both as a listener and a player! Ultimately, I think you are right that it is preferable by far to get a take that feels good and disregard the other considerations.