Philosophical: Technicality does not equate good music

[soundmodel]

Just seeing whether someone agrees with this. I used to seek technical music, because I perceived that adding more and more means more interesting compositions. As an artist example consider e.g. Venetian Snares.

Goes very technical, but lately I've thought that it eats up compositional depth, because the tracks become more reminiscent of technical exercise, rather than "feeling", which I think is central to music. Then feeling does not, in fact, relate to technicality directly. There can be a lot of feeling in technically childish music. Put otherwise, the tracks are technically superior, but they are uninteresting and contain no feel. They don't play in my head after hearing them. I can't remember what was played in them or what was said in them.

[kritikon]

Depends on the genre a lot. There's quite a bit of dance stuff that has little to no feeling but I still like it. Loads of Germanic type techno is music by numbers and can be quite technical, but almost monotonic, robotic and utterly lifeless. But I can like it. Same with some dub, the more electronic stuff can be fairly lifeless in many senses, but I can really go off on one with it. Dub can be very technical with FX and the structure of it, even the syncopated rhythms but it doesn't have to mean lifeless.

Though I tend to agree that real instrument music works better with more feeling than technicality (for me). I guess it's the expressiveness. Obvs real instruments tend to that, whereas synth stuff (my genres, at least) often doesn't have pretenses of expressiveness right at the outset - it's aim is trance through repetition at its basic. A good punk shouty song screamed with venom and feeling can stir the juices even if they obvs can't play their instruments. Trying to get technical with punk would just kill it.

So, it's either or depending on genre for me.

[soundmodel]

Depends on the genre a lot. There's quite a bit of dance stuff that has little to no feeling but I still like it. Loads of Germanic type techno is music by numbers and can be quite technical, but almost monotonic, robotic and utterly lifeless. But I can like it. Same with some dub, the more electronic stuff can be fairly lifeless in many senses, but I can really go off on one with it. Dub can be very technical with FX and the structure of it, even the syncopated rhythms but it doesn't have to mean lifeless.

Interesting, but cannot agree specifically. Some of the most memorable tunes I heard from Aphex Twin were demos. Yes they're unpolished, but that's where their character lies. You can hear the player (with real-life imperfections), rather than refining purism by a machine. Managing these two, well I haven't heard it. Well, maybe Datassette. But it means having an ear for "right and wrong imperfections".

So I don't think it depends on the genre, but just execution in general. I think most music sounds better without removing "right imperfections". The same with classical. There's more character in a mid-level player with some pitch off-sets and all compared to the elite player that only does perfect takes. But certainly sometimes the imperfections are too much, sometimes they're too less.

Something from the webs:

https://www.musicradar.com/news/why-imp ... tter-music

[lfm]

Some listen from a virtuoso point of view and would say equal to technical. They go about music as a technical challenge. Some also bring art to it though, something you can enjoy.

Others have searched their ways through modern classical, if to call it that, into dissonant stuff. Most people would never listen to it again, just horrific feel to it. Nothing you want to repeat being in that state.

Some create art in very different form, like a painter, ballet dancer or actor and the rest.

We are creative beings, and all art tells us something about the untangible side of life. We are all searching for something in what we do, I think, if to call it "meaning". It has a value for the creator or they would not go about doing that. It could be an echo in space or appeal to more people.
- we all search for a reason to exist or just finish it off just as well

Geniouses like Hendrix or Jim Morrison that died far to young. Or as Morrison put it "I want to have my kicks before the shithouse goes up in flames". And he did.

[_al_]

Depends on the genre a lot. There's quite a bit of dance stuff that has little to no feeling but I still like it. Loads of Germanic type techno is music by numbers and can be quite technical, but almost monotonic, robotic and utterly lifeless. But I can like it. Same with some dub, the more electronic stuff can be fairly lifeless in many senses, but I can really go off on one with it. Dub can be very technical with FX and the structure of it, even the syncopated rhythms but it doesn't have to mean lifeless.

Though I tend to agree that real instrument music works better with more feeling than technicality (for me). I guess it's the expressiveness. Obvs real instruments tend to that, whereas synth stuff (my genres, at least) often doesn't have pretenses of expressiveness right at the outset - it's aim is trance through repetition at its basic. A good punk shouty song screamed with venom and feeling can stir the juices even if they obvs can't play their instruments. Trying to get technical with punk would just kill it.

So, it's either or depending on genre for me.

Totally agree.
Genres often require you to be in a particular state of mind.
Pop is made to connect with emotions, and amplify your happiness or sadness, so I'm guessing there is a reason that most pop songs are pretty simple.

But with something like techno, it's all about emptying the mind, and allowing yourself to become entranced by the power of this machine that is printing an alien language on the forefront of your awareness. This is the power of underground dance music, imo. The rolling, unstoppable automation.

And also, it depends on the listener.
You could create a truly artistic masterpiece, and some people will simply be left cold from it, because it's not a pretty girl singing some bs.

And on the other side, you could have a super basic techno track that has a great rolling bassline, and gives you chills when you dance to it, but the guy standing next to you is standing there bored and pulling his phone out.

[soundmodel]

So, it's either or depending on genre for me.

Totally agree.
Genres often require you to be in a particular state of mind.
Pop is made to connect with emotions, and amplify your happiness or sadness, so I'm guessing there is a reason that most pop songs are pretty simple.

But with something like techno, it's all about emptying the mind, and allowing yourself to become entranced by the power of this machine that is printing an alien language on the forefront of your awareness. This is the power of underground dance music, imo. The rolling, unstoppable automation.

And also, it depends on the listener.
You could create a truly artistic masterpiece, and some people will simply be left cold from it, because it's not a pretty girl singing some bs.

And on the other side, you could have a super basic techno track that has a great rolling bassline, and gives you chills when you dance to it, but the guy standing next to you is standing there bored and pulling his phone out.

Some people don't think in genres.

Yes, it can be a matter of taste, but then it is wrong to think skill as technical purism, because good music does not equate technical skill.

Yes, this reminds me of that african guy in Youtube (I think) who was very skilled with drumming, but he only owned some plastic buckets and worn drum sticks. Didn't seem to lower his appeal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjyQkrE8Mok

So is this about technique or character? I don't think the Youtube sound quality even lowers any of the appeal, even if it's to some garbage quality.

[Viktor [TUC]]

... because good music does not equate technical skill.

Good music also doesn't equate lack of technical skill.
(I'm not quite sure where the OP stands on this, so don't take this as an attack please)

To be honest I don't understand aversion against technical skill at all, there's room for sloppy, there's room for rigid, and for everything in between. Both can evoke strong emotions or sound lifeless. They're not opposites of each other, they're not two sides of one coin.
It's okay not to be naive about these things anymore.

[soundmodel]

... because good music does not equate technical skill.

Good music also doesn't equate lack of technical skill.
(I'm not quite sure where the OP stands on this, so don't take this as an attack please)

To be honest I don't understand aversion against technical skill at all, there's room for sloppy, there's room for rigid, and for everything in between. Both can evoke strong emotions or sound lifeless. They're not opposites of each other, they're not two sides of one coin.
It's okay not to be naive about these things anymore.

I wrote above:

Managing these two, well I haven't heard it. Well, maybe Datassette. But it means having an ear for "right and wrong imperfections".

I am not attacking technical skill. I am attacking technical purism as an idea of skill and good music. That is, that one must always add more and more to get better music. That is, that technicality does not linearly increase goodness of music. Because there are technically poor executions that are good music. This can also mean that there are poorly recognized forms of technical excellence (i.e. the technical skill of being imperfect, such as managing atonality, rather than perfect pitch).

[jamcat]

The musicians involved just need to have enough technical skill to perform the music correctly as written. The music itself should be written to convey whatever it is the songwriter wants to communicate.

Music that revolves around showing off technical skill and music that is limited by a lack of technical skill both miss the mark, and for the same reason.

[soundmodel]

Music that revolves around showing off technical skill and music that is limited by a lack of technical skill both miss the mark, and for the same reason.

Well exactly, and I think that Venetian Snares misses the mark on some tracks. They feel just like technical exercise, and I cannot remember what was played in them afterwards.

[jamcat]

Eddie Van Halen, Freddie Mercury, Ronnie James Dio. These are musicians who were incredibly gifted with technical ability and technique. But it was always in service of the song. They never came across like they were showing off, even when they were displaying the heights of technical virtuosity.

[Burillo]

I always hated this subject, because the reality is, it's all complete bullshit.

Eddie Van Halen, Freddie Mercury, Ronnie James Dio. These are musicians who were incredibly gifted with technical ability and technique. But it was always in service of the song. They never came across like they were showing off, even when they were displaying the heights of technical virtuosity.

this is extremely subjective. for example, Van Halen I believe played solo on "Beat It" by Michael Jackson. to me, that solo always sounded like Eddie was showing off, and the solo made absolutely no sense and had no connection to the rest of the song. I feel that way about a lot of Van Halen's stuff actually.

for some, technicality does mean good music, and music that doesn't take a lot of technical skill to be performed is "boring", "stale", "uninteresting", "been done before", you name it (a lot of listeners of prog metal will feel that way about less technically "interesting" genres, for example), and they're right: music is a craft like any other, and one can go into extreme depths of complexity, compared to which a 4-chord song with a simple structure will be uninteresting and boring.

for others, "technicality" is basically masturbation, and they're correct. no song needs key and time signature changes, complex polyrhythmia, three segments, eleven strings, and a bunch of weird altered chords and augmented scales to perform. you can always just use one acoustic guitar, 4 chords, and a verse-chorus structure, and be happy with it - and literally billions of people are.

the truth is, we just like stuff. we tend to attribute "feel" to things we like, and dismiss stuff we don't like as "lifeless" or "boring". there's no rhyme or reason to it. there's no objective way to measure any of it. so just enjoy your music, and stop thrashing others' tastes.

[gaggle of hermits]

is this one of those threads that basically reduces to "good music is stuff I like"?

[Artie Fichelle]

I always wondered, why 99 % of the music is crap. Now I know, it is not the tools, it is the mind of those who use it.
For example, the whole body of classical music recorded, must be redone, a few exceptions of course. That starts with the tuning, the tempo and the mix (and it is not the composers fault).
Other music too. For example Bob Dylan wrote great songs, but never was a good singer. Then Elvis, a good singer, but the arrangements suck.

[soundmodel]

is this one of those threads that basically reduces to "good music is stuff I like"?

Not necessarily. More like, it encourages appreciating other forms of "goodness" and technique (e.g. the technique for sounding bad) and questions pursuing technicality (like loudness) as such. Anti-convention. On the continuum of e.g. discrediting "intelligent music" as such.

Technical music that does not deliver is also very inefficient. Like sports cars are for speed limits.