What's the relationship between experience and good music?

[Poisoned Youth]

From an article Sherry posted in another thread (thought it might make for an interesting discussion):

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog....html?mobify=0

An interesting article, especially with respect to those who think we'll continue to have GREAT new music doing music as "hobbyists". They even make my case by mentioning The Beatles...

This could make for an interesting discussion, but I think the author made a mistake by bringing The Beatles into the discussion. In fact, youth, energy, inspiration, and many other factors have played into the creation of music such as rock and jazz.

This is not to say experience is not important. The article relates it to "The Sporting Scene" - but uses chess as the example, which is a bit ironic considering so much of sport relies on an athletic or physical pursuits. Ultimately, I think in this context, what the article is suggesting is that is does take time to master skills. But in many sports, the players who are younger are the ones who exceed. And an older player who could be the most skilled player in the game can't execute the physical skills necessary to continue to compete at the top level.

Getting back to music, same thing could be said. If a young artist/band has the inspiration and energy to record and release music, maybe they can perfect that skill over time with practice, but there is no guarantee the music will be better as a result. In our own microcosm (while some of it is a product of the time), we often laud an artist's first few albums than we do their later work. And there are rare instances in which we'd take an artist in his/her 60s and, while they may be better experienced musicians/artists than ever, it doesn't mean it translates into better music.

I think the larger point to drive about "hobbyists" vs. "professionals" is that, while there's an abundance of great music out there being made today, it's not being recognized as most people - even hardcore music fans - can only digest so much. As such, artists which may have gone on to produce continued great works get discouraged at the lack of recognition and think twice about the value in creating more. In the end, it's the music "gone unheard" that's the greatest struggle for an aspiring artist/band.

[Sunhillow]

I've read the article and though I respect the opinion in it, I would say it applies more to musicians than to composers. And we all know that there are many accomplished musicians making terrible music, when they've been given a chance to record an album on their own.

And this section puzzled me:

"the psychologist John Hayes looked at seventy-six famous classical composers and found that, in almost every case, those composers did not create their greatest work until they had been composing for at least ten years. (The sole exceptions: Shostakovich and Paganini, who took nine years, and Erik Satie, who took eight.) "

Which 76 composers is he talking about? Clearly, I know a lot of examples within classical music where teenagers made a masterpiece (like e.g. Mendelssohn's Octet, composed at 14). And what 'greatest work' by Shostakovich does he mean? I suspect the 5th symphony, but symphony no. 1, composed at the age 26, is also possible. So Dmitri started composing at 15 and therefore had enough experience to compose 9 years later. What a bunch of bollocks.

Vaughan Williams made his best pieces when he was passed 60. So holding the argument from the article, you could just as well argument that a good composer would need at least 40 years of experience. Too bad for Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mozart, and lots others.

[Jeremy Bender]

This is not to say experience is not important. The article relates it to "The Sporting Scene" - but uses chess as the example, which is a bit ironic considering so much of sport relies on an athletic or physical pursuits. Ultimately, I think in this context, what the article is suggesting is that is does take time to master skills. But in many sports, the players who are younger are the ones who exceed. And an older player who could be the most skilled player in the game can't execute the physical skills necessary to continue to compete at the top level.

Totally agree with that.

Which 76 composers is he talking about? Clearly, I know a lot of examples within classical music where teenagers made a masterpiece (like e.g. Mendelssohn's Octet, composed at 14). And what 'greatest work' by Shostakovich does he mean? I suspect the 5th symphony, but symphony no. 1, composed at the age 26, is also possible. So Dmitri started composing at 15 and therefore had enough experience to compose 9 years later. What a bunch of bollocks.

Korngold was perhaps the last great child prodigy, he had a piece (Die Schneemann) performed when he was about 12, he wrote two one-act operas (Der Ring des Polykrates and the incredible Violanta) when he was about 18 and he completed his masterpiece, Die Tote Stadt, when he was 21. He had Mahler, Puccini and Strauss singing his praises as a child.

Too bad for Schubert, Mendelssohn, Mozart, and lots others

Yes, damn them for dying in their 30's!

[TheH]

I think there are many examples of prog bands who's songwriting quality declined with them getting
more "experience".

[arturs]

^^^ But I think that is often a problem of economics. Once a band is successful, they have bills to pay and have a fan base with expectations. They no longer are willing to just "go for it" the way Steve Howe describes that Yes were in the early days. Also the suits get involved and put in their 2 cents, and pretty soon the artistry goes by the wayside.

[Baribrotzer]

Also, when all is said and done, prog is a subset of pop music. Like it or not. And in pop music youthful energy and all-over-the-place imagination count more than depth of knowledge.

But in the writer's defense, most prog songwriters are self-taught as composers. And the self-taught tend to have a somewhat limited and haphazard "bag of tricks": They will figure out something for themselves by ear or from a book, such as basic counterpoint or basic chromatic harmony, and even use it well, but they don't have the breadth or depth of understanding that training can impart. They never went through the years of guided analysis of how Bach did it and how Wagner did it and how Webern did it, and the equally guided drill of hundreds of student pieces exploring specific compositional skills they need to master. They didn't have somebody like Vincent Persichetti looking over their work every week, and saying something like, "You're going back to the tonic too quick and easy." Or, "You're wandering around here and seem to have lost your way." Or, "You seem to be starting with the harmonic progression, then writing the melody to fit. But you need to learn to do it the other way, too, so come in with just a melody next week: let it go where it wants and don't think about the harmonies for now." Or, "You know these variational techniques pretty well, but you don't ever use those; so in a month I want you to bring in something that only uses those." And eventually that lack of organized study and informed mentoring, that lack of comprehensive knowledge of their craft can come back to bite them. They don't so much run out of ideas, as run out of ways to work with them they haven't already done and done again.

Want a straight-across example of the difference between trained and self-taught? Look at the difference between the classically-trained "old master" film composers like Herrmann or Morricone, and the younger rock-based guys like Hans Zimmer or Danny Elfman. The younger guys don't lack for ideas, even good ideas - but they don't know a tenth of the things to do with them, so they do the same few things over and over and over.

[Jeremy Bender]

Great post Baribrotzer. Emerson is the perfect example of what you mentioned: he had some ideas from his study of Bach and 20th century composers like Ginastera, Bartok, Prokofiev and so on, but when he tried to write more orchestral stuff, he always needed help. It makes me laugh when people call him "classically trained", he's not. Kerry Minnear, he was classically trained and I think that helped with the stuff that Gentle Giant wrote.

Want a straight-across example of the difference between trained and self-taught? Look at the difference between the classically-trained "old master" film composers like Herrmann or Morricone, and the younger rock-based guys like Hans Zimmer or Danny Elfman. The younger guys don't lack for ideas, even good ideas - but they don't know a tenth of the things to do with them, so they do the same few things over and over and over

I'd like to put in a word for one of my very favorite composers, Erich Wolfgang Korngold. He was a child prodigy and he wrote an incredible opera, Die Tote Stadt, by the time he was 21. He was Jewish, and when the Nazis invaded, or more accurately, were welcomed in to Austria, some friends of his managed to get all of his papers and scores from his house, just hours before the Nazis showed up; his family made it on literally the last train out of Austria before the borders were closed.

He's gotten mauled by classical purists because he ended up in Hollywood, being one of the main founders of the big, lush film score style. Some of those scores are fantastic though, I especially love the one he did for a great Edward G. Robinson noir, The Sea Wolf.

And then you have Zimmer or Elfman (whom I like, I'm a big Oingo Boingo fan) who rely on others to help them write and orchestrate and it all sounds like.....Korngold or Herrmann or Waxman or Rozsa. Then there's plagiarists like John Williams........

[N_Singh]

A lot of truly great musicians today are hobbyists. Almost none of these cats are playing in rock bands.

Most highly paid, highly successful rock stars, so-called "professionals" are absolute charlatans.

[Facelift]

To which I would say:

1) Rock and roll isn't brain surgery or chess

2) Rock and roll isn't classical music, either.

I agree with Cozy that the writer did a bad job in his citation of The Beatles. One very important reason that The Beatles didn't make The White Album in 1963/64/65 is because The White Album literally could not have been made in those years. The technology didn't exist and rock music hadn't matured enough. Also, there are lots of people who think that Revolver or Rubber Soul are better albums anyway, and they were made two and three years earlier, respectively.

The number of consensus "great" rock albums made by bands whose members were over 40 is pretty small, whereas many classical composers were considered to be just hitting their stride by this age.

I would say that music is too subjective an endeavor to be part of the analysis, which may very well hold true for things like surgery, chess, juggling, etc.

[klothos]

1) Rock and roll isn't brain surgery or chess
2) Rock and roll isn't classical music, either.

I remember having a similar discussion with you in another thread when i stated that a lot of Prog music can be considered "the highest elevation of Rock music as an art" (even the Wiki is on par with this assessment as saying "an attempt to give greater artistic weight and credibility to rock music"). i was accused for being "elitest" for making that statement.....and as long as you keep making the posts like above, i will keep refuting you

I can listen to certain songs by Yes, Genesis, and Dream Theatre and go "Hey, that entire passage went from Harmonic Minor to Phrygian, just like Paganini!" and I cant say that for a typical song by Foghat or ZZ Top..... there are MANY analogs like that i can specify in certain compositions by certain Progressive Rock bands

Is it Classical Music? No - Classical Music is Classical Music....but can forms of Rock like certain Prog Rock acts have equal intelligence and artistic weight as some Classical? Yes it can!

I agree with Cozy that the writer did a bad job in his citation of The Beatles. One very important reason that The Beatles didn't make The White Album in 1963/64/65 is because The White Album literally could not have been made in those years. The technology didn't exist and rock music hadn't matured enough. Also, there are lots of people who think that Revolver or Rubber Soul are better albums anyway, and they were made two and three years earlier, respectively.

I agree with your assessment somewhat: George Martin and The Beatles were a mutual beneficial symbiotic relationship. Each influenced each other -along with the technology that was evolving at the time - which will influence creativity and artistic direction. I wonder how many Beatles songs would have been penned had George Martin and The Beatles never co-existed? (Conversely, i wonder what songs would have been penned and how the band would have evolved?)

[Tobias / Moon Safari]

I remember having a similar discussion with you in another thread when i stated that a lot of Prog music can be considered "the highest elevation of Rock music as an art" (even the Wiki is on par with this assessment as saying "an attempt to give greater artistic weight and credibility to rock music"). i was accused for being "elitest" for making that statement.....and as long as you keep making the posts like above, i will keep refuting you

I have a real problem with people trying to elevate prog above other genres. It's just as hard, if not harder, to write a song that will appeal to millions of people. Otherwise all the "superior" musicians in prog bands could just write a "Somebody I used to know" or a "Bad Romance", rake in the millions of dollars, and be set for life writing their 40 minute epics in 11/8.

And don't say that it isn't done because of artistic integrity and that they don't want to "lower themselves" to writing pop music and selling out. That's just silly.

[klothos]

I have a real problem with people trying to elevate prog above other genres. It's just as hard, if not harder, to write a song that will appeal to millions of people. Otherwise all the "superior" musicians in prog bands could just write a "Somebody I used to know" or a "Bad Romance", rake in the millions of dollars, and be set for life writing their 40 minute epics in 11/8.

And don't say that it isn't done because of artistic integrity and that they don't want to "lower themselves" to writing pop music and selling out. That's just silly.

and, just like I responded in the other thread: if you look at my iPod, you will find all kinds of music - mosrly funk but you will find Katy Perry, 1910 Fruitgum Company, Lemon Pipers, and other rips from my "Best of Buddah Records Collection Vol 1 and Vol 2, Sweet, Depeche Mode, etc just to name a few...


....just because I can have a conversation and debate aspects of Prog as an attempt to put Rock music on an equal footing with other forms of "art" doesnt mean that I think other forms of music suck........ I like what i like, and dislike what I like: if it moves me, I like it - regardless if it uses substitution modes in a perfect diatonic arrangement, a I-IV-V blues song, or an excellent rap artist like Tech N9ne who I enjoy listening to the flows of the raps themselves...Im not an elitest or a snoot: Im just postulating a hypothesis (that I can base on facts of music theory and composition) that isnt necessarily a reflection on what I like to listen to - that is all

Apparently you misjudged me as well: Yes, i am a musician -- but my fortes are funk, pop, blues, and jazz --- not Prog (although it is fun to play). If you read the post that I was responding to, its from a person i had a previous conversation that keeps making the claim that Rock Music "isnt hard" or "rocket science"....as I am a person that, not only writes Rock and Pop music, but plays it for a living as a career, i do get a lil offendfed when people try to downgrade it

[Tobias / Moon Safari]

....just because I can have a conversation and debate aspects of Prog as an attempt to put Rock music on an equal footing with other forms of "art" doesnt mean that I think other forms of music suck........ I like what i like, and dislike what I like: if it moves me, I like it - regardless if it uses substitution modes in a perfect diatonic arrangement, a I-IV-V blues song, or an excellent rap artist like Tech N9ne who I enjoy listening to the flows of the raps themselves...Im not an elitest or a snoot: Im just postulating a hypothesis that isnt necessarily a reflection on what I like to listen to - that is all

That's fair, and it sounds your view on music is similar to mine. I listen to pop, rock, soul, hiphop, metal and so on. If the tune has something that hooks me, I'm in.
I wasn't commenting your perceived elitism but the view from some that prog is superior and elevated into a true artform. Maybe that's what a lot of prog musicians are AIMING for and telling themselves to feel better when they see Jay-Z:s album sales, but that doesn't mean it's true

[klothos]

That's fair, and it sounds your view on music is similar to mine. I listen to pop, rock, soul, hiphop, metal and so on. If the tune has something that hooks me, I'm in.
I wasn't commenting your perceived elitism but the view from some that prog is superior and elevated into a true artform. Maybe that's what a lot of prog musicians are AIMING for and telling themselves to feel better when they see Jay-Z:s album sales, but that doesn't mean it's true

the concept of what is "Art" is also one ambiguous question-mark anyway.....Marcel Duchamp put a Men's Urinal on a stand and called it Art. The art world called a masterpiece. I call it "WTF?". In the meanwhile, the same artworld belittled Norman Rockwell - accusing him to be a "waste of talent" and referring to him as an "illustrator" instead of an artist, but the guy had over 4000 pieces in his career and can draw a picture almost with photographic detail.

[Tobias / Moon Safari]

the concept of what is "Art" is also one ambiguous question-mark anyway.....Marcel Duchamp put a Men's Urinal on a stand and called it Art. The art world called a masterpiece. I call it "WTF?". In the meanwhile, the same artworld belittled Norman Rockwell - accusing him to be a "waste of talent" and referring to him as an "illustrator" instead of an artist, but the guy had over 4000 pieces in his career and can draw a picture almost with photographic detail.

The best/worst thing when discussing music and arts is that it's entirely subjective. It's not like sports where you can judge who's the best by their results. Everyone can have an opinion on who's "the best" musician etc.

But if music was like sports, Justin Bieber would be Michael Phelps and prog musicians would be this guy:

[Baribrotzer]

I have a real problem with people trying to elevate prog above other genres. It's just as hard, if not harder, to write a song that will appeal to millions of people. Otherwise all the "superior" musicians in prog bands could just write a "Somebody I used to know" or a "Bad Romance", rake in the millions of dollars, and be set for life writing their 40 minute epics in 11/8.

And don't say that it isn't done because of artistic integrity and that they don't want to "lower themselves" to writing pop music and selling out. That's just silly.

It may be more a matter of just not "hearing" music of their own like "Somebody I Used to Know" or "Bad Romance". And how a songwriter or composer "hears" music, in turn, isn't really knowable or controllable - it's a matter of early experiences, of how they learned about music, and what they listen to. That has only partially to do with talent or ability. Most good jazz or classical musicians and composers know far more about music than almost any pop musician and can play it far better - which, at least by some standards, makes them "superior". Yet very few have had hits in the last fifty years. In fact, the last classically-trained composer to have a career of writing hit songs (or at least the last one I can think of) is Burt Bacharach - who is also the last of the Great American Songbook composers.

Look at Neal Morse, for an example: He probably has at least as much innate ability as Gotye or Lady Gaga, loves pop music, has an impressive work ethic, and needs to provide for a growing family. But he has never had a hit. I would put it that he just doesn't "hear" music that sounds like current hits, music built around rhythm rather than melody.

[Facelift]

I remember having a similar discussion with you in another thread when i stated that a lot of Prog music can be considered "the highest elevation of Rock music as an art" (even the Wiki is on par with this assessment as saying "an attempt to give greater artistic weight and credibility to rock music"). i was accused for being "elitest" for making that statement.....and as long as you keep making the posts like above, i will keep refuting you

I can listen to certain songs by Yes, Genesis, and Dream Theatre and go "Hey, that entire passage went from Harmonic Minor to Phrygian, just like Paganini!" and I cant say that for a typical song by Foghat or ZZ Top..... there are MANY analogs like that i can specify in certain compositions by certain Progressive Rock bands

But, interestingly, it doesn't go in the other direction. In any event, I bowed out of that thread because I realized that the efforts involved in continuing to make the case would be wasted.

As far as this thread is concerned, the words I used were chosen deliberately; e.g.: "rock and roll." Take that as you will.

[fictionmusic]

I have a real problem with people trying to elevate prog above other genres. It's just as hard, if not harder, to write a song that will appeal to millions of people. Otherwise all the "superior" musicians in prog bands could just write a "Somebody I used to know" or a "Bad Romance", rake in the millions of dollars, and be set for life writing their 40 minute epics in 11/8.

And don't say that it isn't done because of artistic integrity and that they don't want to "lower themselves" to writing pop music and selling out. That's just silly.

I don't know that acknowledging the complexities of prog is elevating the music at all. It is typically harder to play than pop and in some cases a lot harder. That isn't to say it is of greater value nor is necessarily better, nor is to say that a lot of players in pop couldn't handle complex parts, but getting a drummer who has always played in 4/4 to groove in 11/8 isn't at all common. Try shifting meters constantly through the whole piece and watch some blues drummer who has never once had to play two bars in anything else than 4/4 play it with ease. I garantee you that the average 4/4 pop rock blues drummer couldn't. There is a necessary skill set involved that simply isn't required in easier forms of music.

The same is true of vocalists. Try getting a singer who has been raised on pop music to sing anything that isn't tonal or in four and watch the reaction, no matter how good their pitch, no matter how great their voice. Again, the skill set is far beyond the depth they are used to and succeed quite well with in an easier form of music. This isn't to say pop is inferior, so much as acknowledging that prog is typically a more complex music that requires a bigger bag of tricks.

As far as the depth of quality in writing a tune millions of people want to hear, I disgaree totally. So little of it has to do with the song and so much of it has to do with the artist and their look and appeal and as a consequence, access to a market. You can hardly expect a song to even reach one million people if it is played by a flabby 50 year old, no matter how "crafty" or how much distribution potential exists in youtube.

I think it is sophistry of the worst kind to assume that anything that appeals to millions of people is necessarily better and that any compser who chooses not to exploit that is being silly.

[Tobias / Moon Safari]

I would put it that he just doesn't "hear" music that sounds like current hits, music built around rhythm rather than melody.

But people aren't going around singing rhythms. They're singing along to catchy hooks, melodies that get stuck in your brain. Pop music isn't only about rhythm. It's about getting a song into people's heads.

[Tobias / Moon Safari]

I don't know that acknowledging the complexities of prog is elevating the music at all. It is typically harder to play than pop and in some cases a lot harder. That isn't to say it is of greater value nor is necessarily better, nor is to say that a lot of players in pop couldn't handle complex parts, but getting a drummer who has always played in 4/4 to groove in 11/8 isn't at all common. Try shifting meters constantly through the whole piece and watch some blues drummer who has never once had to play two bars in anything else than 4/4 play it with ease. I garantee you that the average 4/4 pop rock blues drummer couldn't. There is a necessary skill set involved that simply isn't required in easier forms of music.

The same is true of vocalists. Try getting a singer who has been raised on pop music to sing anything that isn't tonal or in four and watch the reaction, no matter how good their pitch, no matter how great their voice. Again, the skill set is far beyond the depth they are used to and succeed quite well with in an easier form of music. This isn't to say pop is inferior, so much as acknowledging that prog is typically a more complex music that requires a bigger bag of tricks.

As far as the depth of quality in writing a tune millions of people want to hear, I disgaree totally. So little of it has to do with the song and so much of it has to do with the artist and their look and appeal and as a consequence, access to a market. You can hardly expect a song to even reach one million people if it is played by a flabby 50 year old, no matter how "crafty" or how much distribution potential exists in youtube.

I think it is sophistry of the worst kind to assume that anything that appeals to millions of people is necessarily better and that any compser who chooses not to exploit that is being silly.

It's funny, because I know drummers who can play Dream Theater or Meshuggah songs but ask them to play a really groovy 4/4 and they can't do it. Sometimes what sounds easy is the hardest thing to do.

Concerning pop singers, I'm not going to generalize. There are great singers that aren't recognized because they're too mainstream and singing songs that are considered bland. That doesn't mean they can't sing other stuff, it just means you haven't heard them sing other stuff.

I think you misunderstood my point about the songwriting. There are no 50 year olds breaking into showbiz as artists now, but there are 50 year old songwriters. Swedish Jorgen Elofsson for instance, has had two Billboard no 1's (with Kelly Clarkson) in the last couple of years and he's pushing 50, broke through as a songwriter when he was 38.
I'm not saying that Neil Morse or whoever is gonna be the artist breaking through, but if they came up with a pop song that had a killer hook they could shop it around and some label would pick it up for their artist. That's how it works. I did an interview with Jorgen when he had his last #1 and he said he didn't even write the song for Clarkson, but no other artist wanted it.

Also, if you see my last post you should understand that my view of music is you can't compare it with sports since you can't measure how good music is with results (album sales). But if prog is so hard to write and pop is so easy to write, then it shouldn't be hard for a prog writer to whip together a couple of pop songs and shop them around to labels. Easy money. But it's not happening. Is it because prog musicians don't wanna sell out and become set for life economically?

[battema]

Beware imminent rambling...

Chess is a fantastic support for the author's argument. It is not a pure creation talent like music or art, it requires also studying and understanding your opponents and their skills in order to defeat them in a match (again, unlike music or art there are criteria for one party to be declared a winner). I imagine it isn't far removed from lawyers who must study many cases and precedents in order to best succeed in "competing" in court. Like you said Cozy, unlike most other sports it does not require physical stamina so the years required to reach the necessary talent level are not offset by the physical decline of the body.

The theory also holds up well for performers...one might have raw talent and potential but to truly become a virtuoso also requires commitment and discipline that could well take years to achieve. This could potentially also be offset by physical stamina like a sport, but probably less so overall.

When it comes to composing...I tend to be a bit more skeptical. You can train for 10-20 years in all the various techniques and tricks of composition, and still not be able to write a melody worth a damn. IMHO that creative potential is something that is either there or it isn't...the training simply expands one's capacity to leverage that creativity to it's maximum potential.

IMHO pop music shows this the most. You can have a young kid with very limited musical skills churn out some incredibly memorable pop songs; his relative inexperience is more than offset by that spark.

On the whole, prog(ressive) is still pop(ular) music. A bunch of rock musicians decide they're going to write a "serious" work and bang out something with a few repeating themes and some exposition, label it a symphony or work parts 1-3 and boom...there it is. IMHO the sense of elevation is superficial though; a nod to a particular modal change or motif usage doesn't really warrant a piece of music standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the finest works from the classical greats.

As for virtuosity...anyone who thinks prog holds the alpha and omega of chops needs to spend a bit more time in the realms of jazz or even metal

Not that prog and pop haven't had some truly brilliant and beautiful moments...I love lots of it. But it is what it is.

[battema]

But if prog is so hard to write and pop is so easy to write, then it shouldn't be hard for a prog writer to whip together a couple of pop songs and shop them around to labels. Easy money. But it's not happening. Is it because prog musicians don't wanna sell out and become set for life economically?

Hey, now that Phil Collins has retired, I guess someone needs to step up and fill his shoes as the great Antichrist of prog, right?

I tried it a few times...it isn't easy at all. There's an economy to writing a brief song that can capture exactly what you want to say, and in a way that is memorable enough to stick with people. Sure...some pop fluff is just image, but not all of it. When I go to the clubs and hear some of those pop tunes, they aren't showing videos or anything but damned near everyone on the floor is singing along. That's impressive as hell IMHO.

I don't write prog because I think it is the superior form of rock expression...I write prog because it just seems to work best for me.

[BobM]

I think from a live playing perspective, experience is everything.

From a compositional and improvisational angle, for classical or jazz, I also think experience counts big time. But from a prog or rock angle I think there is a peak, where an artist just gets complacent and safe. For prog and rock youth and exhuberance is king, with some practical experience of course.

[fictionmusic]

It's funny, because I know drummers who can play Dream Theater or Meshuggah songs but ask them to play a really groovy 4/4 and they can't do it. Sometimes what sounds easy is the hardest thing to do.

Concerning pop singers, I'm not going to generalize. There are great singers that aren't recognized because they're too mainstream and singing songs that are considered bland. That doesn't mean they can't sing other stuff, it just means you haven't heard them sing other stuff.

I think you misunderstood my point about the songwriting. There are no 50 year olds breaking into showbiz as artists now, but there are 50 year old songwriters. Swedish Jorgen Elofsson for instance, has had two Billboard no 1's (with Kelly Clarkson) in the last couple of years and he's pushing 50, broke through as a songwriter when he was 38.
I'm not saying that Neil Morse or whoever is gonna be the artist breaking through, but if they came up with a pop song that had a killer hook they could shop it around and some label would pick it up for their artist. That's how it works. I did an interview with Jorgen when he had his last #1 and he said he didn't even write the song for Clarkson, but no other artist wanted it.

Also, if you see my last post you should understand that my view of music is you can't compare it with sports since you can't measure how good music is with results (album sales). But if prog is so hard to write and pop is so easy to write, then it shouldn't be hard for a prog writer to whip together a couple of pop songs and shop them around to labels. Easy money. But it's not happening. Is it because prog musicians don't wanna sell out and become set for life economically?

My point is simply that what exists in prog is generally more difficult to play than what exists in pop. A good drummer is a good drummer and the ability to play Meshuggah well and the ability to groove in 4/4 certainly shouldn't be mutually exclusive and I agree it takes talent to do both. Generally though few drummers come up the ranks mastering odd meters but neglecting common ones, and I would be leery of any drummer's chops who can't groove in 4 to the point where I suspect they couldn't groove in odd meters.

This is a silly argument really. Truthfully, how many musicians can you find who can play complex music who have only played pop, and how many players do you think exist in a any scene who can play complex music compared to those who play simple music (ability to groove notwithstanding)? Complex and simple are absolutely valid terms in describing this. I agree it is not like sport, but look at any music school and see the progression. While there are always those who are exceptions, I would say the exception proves the rule rather than disproves it. Bartok's microcosm is a great way to acknowlege this forward progression: easy pieces moving to complex pieces with an understanding of what is common and what is less so both in physical ability as well as the development of ears and expectations in tonality.

I was at a gig last night with a guitarist who couldn't keep a pocket to save his life. Everyone else knew it. He simply wasn't as good as the rest of his buddies. That is a common theme in music and all things are far from equal. My point then is it isn't like olympics and the success of a song isn't dependant on its mass appeal, on this we agree, BUT, there is a forward lineage in regards to abilty and musicality and most musicians can assess someone's talent and craft quite easily.


As far as songwriting and hits go, I know lots of songwriters who try and get hits. I have been at the PRO sponsered songwriting seminars (not always by choice) and I have heard their spiels. Personally I don't think it is a real gift to write a pop song these days (and I don't mean denigrate the geniuses who have written brialliant pop songs like XTC and the Beatles etc etc). You have to think that way is all and be content with music that is simple and tonal. It needn't be breath-takingly original but it has to be simple and tonal. Getting millions of people to like anything isn't an art. It is an excercise in propaganda.

I know lots of composers who would never bother writing pop regardless of how much money they want. There really is a thing called artistic integrity and while I personally don't think pop is any less a music than others, I know people who would NEVER regard it as anything other than pap and would never "lower" themselves to write it. That doesn't make them fools or silly nor does it give any real creedence to those who are "laughing all the way to the bank". You are what you do and sometimes people just don't want to be something they are not regardless of how much money is involved.

[klothos]

But, interestingly, it doesn't go in the other direction. In any event, I bowed out of that thread because I realized that the efforts involved in continuing to make the case would be wasted.

As far as this thread is concerned, the words I used were chosen deliberately; e.g.: "rock and roll." Take that as you will.

Thank You and I apologize for getting my feathers a bit ruffled.......For the record, I am only trying to support a hypothesis for an online discussion but, in reality, it really is apples and oranges comparing the greatest works by Yes to a piece like Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto Number 2 ....I do get that