Conference napalm::heavy_metal

    
    Their music is very very good. Who cares if they don't have formal
    training?

    From Webster's...
    
    Musician - n.  One skilled in the composing of music.
    
    To answer Cooper...you have to understand the 'language' of music
    to really be a "musician"...if you don't, you are just a PLAYER.
    There is a BIG difference between a Player and a Musician.
    
    Charlie Parker was a Musician.  Joe Schmo whos 1st saxophonist in the
    High School Jazz band, but only reads whats on the chart is a
    Player...see the difference?
    
    Having been at Berklee, I've seen the players and the musicians.  It's
    a pretty obvious difference.  The dude a few back stated "Slayer are 
    first class musicians"...Segovia...Perlman...Horwitz...THEY are first 
    class musicians...not a bunch of thrash guitar players who admit not to
    know what the hell they are doing, but who can play fast and assemble
    notes in some random order...that does not qualify, I'm sorry!
    
    To be a Musician in the true sense of the word, you music study music.
    All music...harmony, arranging, orchestration, composition,
    counterpoint, etc.  Once well versed in the rudiments of music, you can
    then speak the language.  Once you speak the language, then you can go
    on to hone your craft to perfection.  Miles Davis once said "To be a 
    musician, you have to learn it all...then just forget the rules and
    play.  BUT...you can't just play...you gotta do the time..you gotta
    learn the sh.., you just can't PLAY"  Truer words were never spoken.
    
    But, even after all of the above, I'm sure you all will still think
    that Tom and Kerry of Slayer are first class musicians...right up there 
    with the likes of Midori and Miles. (yeah right, get a clue)

    >Their music is very very good. Who cares if they don't have formal
    >training?
    
    No one, but lets put it into perspective, ok?

    
    i think i see your point.

    
    No offense Buck, but aren't you a little hung up on the Book meaning of
    everything. By my definition Musicians are people who make or play
    music...that includes Slayer...and god forbid Rap. I'm not sayin'
    Slayer is Mozart or Beethoven or Chikofski (sp?)  but they do make
    music. 
    Also by what standards do you hold 'First Class' by. I bet you have a
    different view about it than other people.
    
    Chris, who doesn't really care if you like 'em or not. Not my problem

    If you`re talking about putting things into perspecitve,don`t bother
    comparing jazz musicians and classical musicians with heavy metal
    'musicians'. 
    
    Joe Strummer.
    

    RE: CC
    
    Book meanings *do* have a purpose...otherwise they wouldn't be in
    books, now would they?!
    
    
    RE: Strummer
    
    Why can't I compare Jazz, Classical, and HM musicians?  The *true*
    musicians in those genre's all have similar, underlying traits.  I'm
    not saying there aren't honest musicians in Metal or Hard Rock, but
    there are a lot of people in Rock that are more flash and show than
    knowledge or subtsance.  It's those people I was reffering too (and
    this includes the likes of Slayer dudes and Iron Maiden...both self
    proclaimed musical idiots.  Now, bands like Deep Purple, or Metallica) 

    I think talent is the first value for a musician. Technical knowledge
    is learnable and can make from someone a fine player in an orchestra or
    an average song writer. Someone who has average talent may imitate
    styles extremely well but bring in little originality, and he still may
    be quite successful.
    Slayer have very much talent.
    
    I like classical music but I also like Slayer. Talent is the common
    denominator for those who created the music.
    
    
    Sorin

    >I think talent is the first value for a musician. 
    
    Agreed, talent is a pre-req.  However, you can have all the talent in
    the world, but has that talent led you to understand your craft?  Jimi
    Hendrix was self-taught, but he taught himself to understand the 
    theories of music.
    
    Look at it this way...if a person can talk and communicate, but cannot
    write or read their language, they are considered illiterate.  They
    still function, but on a certain level...a lower level than someone who
    is literate.  Music is a language...those who can write and read music
    are considered literate as well in music circles.  It is the literate
    who are considered 'musicians'.  It is the illiterate in music who are
    comsidered players.
    
    Maybe that analogy is a little clearer to making my point.
    

    Er,not wanting to create a rat hole,but what does that make Paul
    McCartney? He can`t read music for toffee,yet he`s recently done a
    Opera type thing in Liverpool,let alone the million other things he`s
    done.
    
    I don`t think many people would call him musically illiterate.
    
    Joe Strummer.
    

    ... but does that mean that the `illiterate' person can't do their job
    *well* ?  I know this is a dead horse, but from my experiences, I'd
    rather listen to Mr. Self_taught than Mr. I_know_my_modes_Im_a_legend
    any day.  But that's me.  
    
    The latest Slayer album (not the live one ...) is fantastic.  Who cares
    if the guitar players just jam ?  The end justifies the means - they're
    doing what they wanna do - they're getting paid for it.  I could care
    less if these guys couldn't hit their ass with both hands, the music is
    good - that's all that matters.  That is, unless you're trying to make
    someone look bad because they can't read music - which doesn't hold any
    water.
    
    Scary

    RE: .32
    
    ... somehow, I think someone *will* call him musically illiterate
    shortly ... that is, if the RULE applies to everyone equally.
    
    
    Scary

    RE:  .10
    
    >Er,not wanting to create a rat hole,but what does that make Paul
    >McCartney? He can`t read music for toffee,yet he`s recently done a
    >Opera type thing in Liverpool,let alone the million other things he`s
    >done.
    
    McCartney falls under the Hendrix syndrome.  Through his persistence
    and talent, he UNDERSTANDS music fully, although me may not be able
    to score for strings (as a the Liverpool symphony) technically, his
    background allows him that ability to write for them.
    
    
    >... but does that mean that the `illiterate' person can't do their job
    >*well* ? 
    
    No, but if an illiterate person was hired (somehow) as a communications
    expert, it would only be time before he'd loose his gig.  If some young
    hot shot player with burning chops somehow scores a gig with Zappa's
    band (fer instance), it would only be a matter of time for him to loose
    the gig if he didn't have his reading, improv, transcription, and
    ensemble chops up to snuff.
    
    
    Bottom line:  No matter how much you know...no matter how well you
    play, there will *always* be someone who knows more, plays faster,
    solos better, is more creative, etc. etc. etc.  It's a dog-eat-dog
    world...unless as young player these days sets out to learn as much as
    physically possible...to learn and be able to play as many styles as 
    possible, and to be able to read...unless he finds a band that gets
    signed and hits the big time with some cool tunes, they will never go
    anywhere in music.  And that's reality...
    
    Cheers...

    re: jerry
    
>    I know this is a dead horse, but from my experiences, I'd rather listen
>    to Mr. Self_taught than Mr. I_know_my_modes_Im_a_legend any day. 
    
    First off, how can you associate knowing music theory and being
    "musically literate" with the attitude implied by "Im_a_legand"?
    
    Second off, you're theory doesn't hold water, since I happen to know
    several of the players which you love read music and know music theory
    well.  Yer the one that turned a bunch of us on to Racer X, hard to say
    that both those guitar players weren't musically literate.  Did it
    make them play any less creatively because of it?  I don't think so.
    
    You listen to Steve Vai and enjoy his work, he is a master
    transcriptionist, does that make him play music which is less creative? 
    
    You love Joe Satriani, a known expert in music theory, do you think
    this hurts his playing or his ability to express himself on the
    instrument?
    
    NOT!
    
    Wouldn't you say that your own personal lack of musical knowledge
    limits what you do with the guitar?  I know it does for me!
    
    re: Joe Strummer
    
    I believe you are incorrect in stating that Paul McCartney does not
    know how to read and write music (or at least didn't at one time). 
    I've been reading the Beatles recording logs book recently and there
    were many instances where the Beatles prepared charts for studio
    musicians they used on their recordings, and also prepared charts of
    music in reverse order so that it could be recorded forward (backward)
    and then reversed to give the desired sequence of tones, but with a
    reverse envelope.  I suppose George Harrison or George Martin could
    have done the actual transcription (as it explicitly said they did this
    on specific occasions), but since John and Paul were the primary
    songwriters, I suspect they also knew how to do it (whether they did it
    or not).  Paul also uses fairly complex chordal forms in his songs and
    they fit the theory that makes them work together, therefore he must
    know something about music theory because people don't just happen on
    things like that by accident.
    
    re: this topic in general
    
    It is possible to function as a musician (in profession) without being
    musically literate, but I believe it limits you.  It's like being an
    author without knowing how to write, yeah, you could probably do it
    (speak the words into a tape recorder and have someone else that knows
    how to write transcribe it), but it seems to me that most people that
    don't know how to read have a pretty limited vocabulary and being a
    successful author may be more difficult based on that.
    
    The analogy falls down when it comes to rock music because there is
    another factor involved, that of physical skill.  A person that can
    play the instrument more skillfully will always have an advantage
    because of this physical attribute which they've developed.  In many
    rock (and especially hard rock) contexts, the skill and some
    inspiration is all that's required to get people by.  Does this make
    them musicians?  Well, by profession, yes, but they're generally pretty
    limited because they can only play the types of things they know.  Put
    a classical or jazz chart in front of them and they'll stare at it
    blankly.
    
    I've always found it kind of interesting that popular music forms (such
    as rock, blues, and C&W) are the ONLY forms of music where musical
    knowledge is not generally valued by the people that do it.  And
    generally those that play these musical forms (and don't study further)
    find it impossible to play anything not in their musical genre!
    
    gh

    I can't read music for shit - that limits me.  I can hear a song a few
    times and play the vocal line note for note - that puts me above the
    others, but only in that area.  So what's the point ?  Beats me ... 8^)
    
    I can appreciate the highly trained and educated players, more so if
    they retain some feel, as with Satch and Vai.  But I'm not gonna say
    someone is a lousy musician because they can't read tab either.  My
    ears don't care.  But I can't help but be defensive for those players
    of `my kind' ... that being a pretty decent player with pretty decent
    chops and no idea of reading/transcribing music.  It doesn't make my
    solos any less pleasing to listen to .... so I've been told.  
    
    Hey, it all really boils down to 2 types of listening public -
    musicians and non_musicians.  There we go with that damn word again. 
    For me, if I'm totin' a guitar, I'm a musician ... if I'm sans guitar,
    I guess I'm not ...
    
    Scary

    I know a lot of guitarists who don't know sh*t about "writing" what
    they play in any format.... but even though I studied music whilst at
    school... they blow me away!  From a personal view point, knowing
    differnt modes and how they relate to each other, or knowing every
    possible "legal" chording from a scale means nothin if it doesn't sound
    good when they play.
    
    I would much rather listen to someone play guitar who has feel for what
    he is doing, than some techno whiz kid who's been trained in a
    "classical" discipline, and does not make me feel good when he plays.
    
    The term musician surely applies to someone who can make people feel
    good when they play... TRAINED OR NOT!
    
    Bonzo

    maybe you don't care but..................agreed!
    
    
    
    
                                                  Staynz
    
    who plays music but knows bugger all theory.

    
    Nice one Bonzo.
    
    Flip

    
    Look at that, Alan put on his moderator hat.
    
    

    
    I can still read drum music. DO I qualify or what?

But you hang around with musicians right?  ;-)

    Yeah, this is a musician's topic .... said nothing about drummers.  8^)
    
    
    Scary

    
    pfffttt!
    
    I could care less. I still kick some serious a$$ on a drum kit,
    according to popular opinion.

    Wwwwwaaaaaayyyyyy back in note .2 I think Buck you gave a def. for
    Musician....you left out a little... (I think to prove your point)
    
    Musician (myoo-zish'en) -n- ' One skilled in composing OR PERFORMING music. 
    
                            -The American Heritage Dictionary 1984.
    
    Chris, just stating the facts.
    

    
    The Concise Oxford Dictionary:
    
    Musician - Person skilled in science *or* practice of music.
    
    The 'or' is in italics, implying that you can one, the other or both.
    
    However, you do have to be skilled at it.  8^)
    
    

    re: .16
    
>    I would much rather listen to someone play guitar who has feel for what
>    he is doing, than some techno whiz kid who's been trained in a
>    "classical" discipline, and does not make me feel good when he plays.
    
    I don't understand the attitude that  training in music implies that
    you will be *less* expressive when you play.  Many of the *most*
    expressive guitar players I can think of are very well educated in
    music theory.  This attitude seems rather prevelant in this discussion
    and I can't figure out why.
    
    I might have said this before, but I think there are three attributes
    which comprise musicianship; Physical Skill, Inspiration, and
    Knowledge.  Having extra ability in any one of these will sort of make
    up for deficiencies in the others.  
    
    For instance, a player who posesses great speed and technical accuracy
    but not much musical knowledge can probably get by as a rock guitarist,
    but probably not as a classical composer.  Likewise, a player who does
    not have the amazing technical ability on the instrument can often
    survive as a musician (profession) by having a lot of inspiration. 
    Musicial knowledge will not survive by itself (except perhaps in an
    academic environment), but adds to the others.
    
    I personally believe that the more a player knows about what they're
    doing, the more potential means of expression they have to use when
    expressing themselves.  I've found that players that get by due to
    physical skill at playing their instrument are the ones that usually
    have the least feeling in their playing.  Guitar players like Chris
    Impelliterri(sp?) spring immediately to mind.
    
    re: Scary
    
    You said something about coming from a musically uneducated point of
    view, well, I'm basically in the same boat.  I do not know very much
    about music.  However I value that knowledge and can see how it would
    be useful and I'm slowly growing in that respect.
    
    Greg
                                                     

    It's all in where you wanna go.  Personally, the music I like and the
    music I've written isn't hyper technical, so wads of theory wouldn't
    help me reach my goal.  I don't think any less of myself because I
    can't read music.  The end goal it what we're all griping about anyway. 
    For certain types of music, you MUST be well schooled, or you'll fall
    by the wayside.  I just don't think someone should discount someone
    because they lack certain abilities, even though they get the job done
    and get it done *well*.  And, I also don't think that *musicians*
    should think less of themselves because they can't do this or that.  If
    they enjoy playing - fine.  If getting a musical education would help
    them reach THEIR goals and make them happier with THEIR playing - fine.
    
    From the listener's prospective, I don't care what all went on before
    the music got created.  All the knowledge in the world doesn't mean
    shit to my ears, and I think the majority of music listeners are in the
    same boat.  It's the other musicians that like to disect other players
    and find faults.  Thanks god the world isn't made up solely of
    musicians.
    
    Scary

    can't argue with that.  

    .27
    
    Greg,
    
    While agreeing with you in principle, we will always have our
    differences... I value yours... I also value my own!
    
    As long as it sounds good... I don't care if the "Musician" is trained
    or not.  (I can see your point about knowledge, but feel that if you do
    not want to move between rock & jazz or jazz & classical, etc. I do not
    feel it is entirely necessary to know every style unless you intend to
    be a session musician.  I DID NOT SAY THAT IT WASN'T DESIREABLE, JUST
    THAT IT MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY NECESSARY)
    
    Anway who cares what I think!
    
    Bonzo

    Well Bonz, I also agree with you.  Some of my favorite players, such as
    Jeff Beck, are completely unschooled and musicially ignorant.  It
    doesn't stop them from making great music.  However I wonder what else
    they could do if they were more musically knowledgable...
    
    These type people get by because they have extra skill at playing the
    instrument and extraordinary inspiration (remember the three things I
    said could balance out the music that someone produces?).
    
    FWIW, Coop and I went and saw Blues Saraceno at a Yamaha guitar clinic
    on Saturday and he said he was completely musically ignorant.  But at 
    the same time, he stressed (rather adamently) that if you have the
    chance to take lessons or study music formally, that you absolutly
    should.
    
    gh

    
    	I recall Jeff Beck saying something along the lines that he found
    	working on cars more exciting than playing.
    
    	- Jim

    He should come work on mine then, that'd get him back on the guitar in
    a hurry!
    
    gh

    OH................Slay...Slay.....Shezzzz, Give me a BREAK!
    
                         Frizkid
    

    
    What're you jealous Frizzy...  8)8)8)8)8)

          The one who knows the least about something always talks about it
     the most......
             Maybe that's why I talk about women alot..8)!
    
      Really.....If someone in here is anymore vain...I'm gonna puke!
    
                        Frizkid
    

    I just stumbled on this conference....I'm not an HM'er but my son is.
    Or maybe his music is more defined as "ALTERNATIVE". I'm wondering if
    any of you might have heard of his band, or caught them when they came
    through New England last month. The name of his band is:
    
    "LOVE BATTERY" and they originate out of Seattle. They record on the
    SUBPOP label with latest releases called "Between the Eyes" and
    "DAYGLO". Both on tape and disc. They just completed a 30 city tour and
    are associated with Nirvana..???
    
    I caught them at the Club Babyhead in Providence and the Brewery in
    Portsmouth, NH......NOT BAD at all...I enjoyed them very much and so
    did the sellout crowd at both places. As I said earlier, I'm not an
    HM"er, but when I played his latest release (DAYGLO) on the CD last
    night, the dog left the room, but I found myself being entranced with
    the sounds. They must be doing something right...the studio has booked
    them for a European Tour this fall. Locally, they played Smith College,
    some club in Cambridge, UNH, and on up through Montreal, Toronto, and
    back toward Seattle hitting major cities in between.
    
    Let me know if you have heard them.....thanks....Al dtn 293-5025