Is Technique Important in Music?

Cafe Society
1

So I’ve been playing guitar for about 7 years now, during which time I have made an effort to learn difficult pieces of music (“Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” by Bach, “Shallow be Thy Game” by RHCP, “Overture 1928” by Dream Theater) and experiment with unorthodox techniques (slapping, tapping, harmonics, etc.) to try to develop myself into a mature, flexible, and highly proficient musician. I’ve been writing my own material this whole time, but it was only recently that I decided I wanted to get my music out there and possibly put out an album. I’m trying to gauge what audiences might be interested in this endeavor, and thus my questions are:

To what extent do you care if the musician you are listening to is technically proficient or not?

To what extent do you care if the song you are listening to is technically challenging or not?

To what extent do you appreciate seeing/hearing techniques that you have never seen/heard before?

2

If you’re not technically proficient (like me), you’re not going to appreciate technically proficient music.

Technique will impress those who have it, but the rest of us just need music that sounds good.

3

Technique should be a means to an end; if advanced techniques are the only way you can present your vision to your audience, then you should use them. They shouldn’t be the end itself, unless your goal is to show off. If it is, fire away!

To answer your questions, I like technically challenging music. I like hearing someone stretch the abilities of an instrument. I also like seeing someone do it. I learn cool fun things. Very seldom is it useful, though.

Overall, I cannot stand listening to anyone who is not proficient at their craft. Music played sloppily or out of tune is not good music no matter how advanced or easy the piece is.

4

I would rather hear a simple song played well than a complicated piece played poorly. I have heard people play music that sounded more like “look at how clever I am” than fun or tuneful.

5

To me it’s two separate things. There’s the whole thing of putting your fingers on the right frets at the right time, knowing what a diminished chord is, and all that technical stuff. Then there’s feel, where you understand the music and really play it.

Too often for me, the really technical playing doesn’t have much feel to it. Watching someone sweep-picking, tapping, and doing all that technical stuff gets old really quickly. I’d much rather listen to someone really play the song. The flip side of that is some of the best songs aren’t very technically challenging and don’t offer all that much opportunity for showing off, but they’re so much more interesting to listen to.

6

Very little. It’s a bit of a plus if you know the performer playing is some kind of amazing virtuoso, but not more than that. Instead of measuring a performer against a predetermined standard I think it’s much better to judge him by how well he achieves the goal for which he set out. Thelonious Monk could be considered a middling piano player by many criteria, but in his field, playing the kind of music he enjoyed, who’s better? I use the same reasoning to justify my love of Bob Dylan’s voice.

If, however, the musician is going to play Liszt, he damn well better be amazingly technically proficient or I’ll care very much and in a very bad way.

A very difficult passage well executed can give a thrill, but only if it makes aesthetic sense in the context of the piece. On the other hand, technically challenging music badly played is just awful.

I like it a lot, but again, only if it’s not done gratuitously.

Poor technique can ruin beautiful and interesting music and often does, but good technique is never responsible for good music by itself.

7

can you do tremolo picking for spanish flamenco? recuerdos dela alhambra’s my favorite. yoochoob jim greeninger and john williams (did i get that second guy’s name right? he’s british.)

8

I think it depends on the genre.

I’ve heard some pretty sloppy rock and roll and punk that may have been “technically” awful, but was still pretty enjoyable to listen to.

9

Is Technique Important in Music?

Depends on the music, and on your personal definition of “technique”. Generally the word is used to mean “the sort of stuff they teach you at the conservatory”, which is, to my mind, a stupidly limited and limiting definition. So, “technique” (in that limited sense) is important in “technical” music and unimportant in “untechnical” music.

To what extent do you care if the musician you are listening to is technically proficient or not?

Again, it depends on what you mean by “technique”. If the musician has the ability to play what he/she is playing in a pleasing way, then that is good musical technique. On the other hand, the ability to play a complex piece with absolute precision of timing says very little about a players actual talent level. My MIDI sequencer can perform anything programmable with complete perfection every time, but that doesn’t make it a musician, and you won’t find too many people that prefer perfect MIDI sequences to human performances.

To what extent do you care if the song you are listening to is technically challenging or not?

“Challenging” in the sense you seem to be using it is irrelevant to me. I like a lot of music, from complex stuff to simple stuff. However, coming up with something that is “simple” and effective is far more of challenge - a true challenge - than it looks. That’s the real trick: making it look easy, making it look like anyone could have done it. I’m far more impressed by people who can do that than I am with people who try to blind you with “amazing technique”.

**To what extent do you appreciate seeing/hearing techniques that you have never seen/heard before? **

I’m always interested in hearing something that I haven’t heard before. That’s why I tend to be drawn more towards idiosyncratic musicians than the virtuoso type. I do enjoy music that takes a lot of conservatory-type study and practice, but I prefer stuff that’s looser and “simpler” than that. But really, the result is what’s important to me: do I want to hear this? If the answer is yes, it’s good music. And I’ve heard plenty of “bad” musicians that I enjoy listening to, and plenty of “good” ones that I don’t.

10

I once saw James Galway in concert, during which he played two concertos: one by Mozart and one by Lowell Lieberman.

Mozart is not terribly complicated from a technical standpoint - the melodies are simple and there are not a lot of huge technically complicated passages demanding a high degree of skill. As a result Galway, who could clearly play this in his sleep, spent the time bouncing all over the stage, playing with the front row of the audience, waving his flute around and generally trying to rouse the crowd (with some success, I may add). And I was appalled, because in the midst of all the theatrics was some really sloppy playing. Mozart requires care because it’s so simple - it’s the interpretive nuance that brings out the genius of the music, not the ability to dance a jig while playing it. I’m sure Galway could have played it beautifully but didn’t.

As a contrast the Lieberman, which had been written for Galway, was a technical nightmare. No more dancing about; Galway had to put every ounce of concentration into wrestling this beast of a piece into submission. And as a result it was a far better performance.

So yes, technique is important. It’s not the only consideration - interpretive elements are also very important - but I expect any professional level musician to be able to operate their goddamn instrument properly (or, for vocalists, sing without autotune). And while not every piece needs to be a virtuosic showcase, neither should it be a hot mess of muddled tunings and rhythms.

11

As a player, I find when I am playing a clear groove that people are dialed into, they are more likely to be drawn in by cool technique. But that means that the song - and the song’s groove - come first. I think when folks realize they are *having a great time *- either sitting or dancing, depending on the venue - some of them will connect with the music and pay attention to its execution. That’s when I find I get compliments about my playing, which may or may not correlate with passages that I find technically demanding. Johnny Ramone’s 1-note solo in I Wanna Be Sedated totally works for that song - that’s what people care about.

Also, I learned early on that I was not the type of player who would “win” with technique. What is there to win anyway? Letting go of trying to win the gunfight when playing with other guitarists was liberating.

12

I didn’t want to post any of my music at first, because I don’t want to abuse the forum as an advertising zone, but I think it’s appropriate given the responses in this discussion. This is a piece of mine titled “The Aurora Affliction”. I’m truly proud of it because it incorporates a lot of unusual techniques that are fun to watch (and play), but at the same time, it is compelling to listen to even without the visuals of a live performance. But that’s just my obviously biased opinion; what do you guys think?

13

You have a lot of cool techniques - fun.

I will say this: one person’s “prog” - cool shifts in time, key and feel over the course of a piece - is another person’s “random noodling.” I prefer to have a clearer melodic “hook” and overall structure to a song - totally IMHO - but if you could establish a clear melodic theme, hit some cool, technique-y variations, and then return to that common theme, like Satriani does on Surfing with the Alien and other instrumental pieces - you are more likely to anchor the listener.

My $.02

14

Wow. What a great question.
As a life long drummer I have to say, NO, but w/ a qualification.

Some the greatest jazz drummers had terrible technique, but they had incredible feeling, touch and time. And they all knew the tunes they were playing, inside out. For example: Art Blakley’s press roll was technically aweful, but it’s become one of his identifiable sounds on recordings.

On melodic and harmonic instruments, I’d have to say that in addition to having great time, one needs to have the ability to hear. You must play in key, you must know how to phrase, you must have an internal clock. If technical practice helps you to get to that point, then do it!

I’d have to say from a life’s worth of personal experience that the two keys to successful musicianship (other than perseverence) is joy in what you’re playing and being completely relaxed when doing it.

15

I am a musician and primarily a blues guy, so take this with that in mind.

I don’t. Technical proficiency doesn’t enter my mind when listening to music unless it is a style of music where technical proficiency is most important (rare), or the lack of proficiency get’s in the way of the music being performed well.(sadly common)

I care even less. Some of my very favorite songs are dead simple. Again, I am a blues guy and my bread and butter is straight 12 bar blues. When listening though a quality two chord jam get’s me seriously excited. Someone doing something surprising with a I-IV-V 8 bar progression will make me drool.

What you as a musician bring to the music and your ability to surprise me is more important to me than how hard it is to do. Jam on a single note for 6 bars if you want, and if you do it right I will say you are a genius.

Love it. Watching people who do crazy stuff is fun. I should note that I never buy music based on this though.

16

Depends on the style of music, as others have said.

Would Pavement be better if they’d spend years practicing their craft? I believe it was Cornershop that said, when asked about their lack of ability, something along the lines of “with this energy you want us to go away and practice for five years?”

17

Fair enough, but if Steve Vai can make a career out of “random noodling”, then so can I! :stuck_out_tongue:

18

:slight_smile:

I do agree with WordMan’s comments on melodic hook. At the moment, the song does sound a bit wandering. But maybe that’s what you’re going for. There’s certainly no rule that a song needs to have hook or repetition, although it does help anchor the listener’s ear.

From a technique and musical expression perspective, I would like to hear a bit more vibrato and bending in the music. For me, that’s where a lot of the soul in guitar music lays: in between the notes, but I do tend to come from a blues perspective. (And this is also the opinion of a guy grew on piano who didn’t have the option of vibrato or bending, so perhaps I’m speaking as a frustrated pianist. ;)) Guitar songs focused on fretboard tapping generally sound a bit mechanical to me, although there are exceptions.

19

Great thread!

Admittedly, if I know a musician is technically proficient, I’m more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt when I’m listening to them. But it also very much depends on the style of music. If I’m listening to a style that typically requires a high level of proficiency, like Progressive Metal, then I very much care, because musicians that aren’t technically proficient playing that genre end up just sounding like a slower, sloppier version of everyone else.

In other genres, the technical proficiency is largely irrelevant. A genre like Ambient or Doom are a lot more about the atmosphere and melodies and are often much lower tempo. Hell, some of my favorite artists in this genre, when I’ve seen them live, are technically mediocre at best, but that’s just not their goal.

Again, this is similar to the above. What is the message that the song is trying to get across? Sometimes technical proficiency is absolutely necessary, sometimes it’s irrelevant, but there’s a lot more gray area here. In general, if a particular theme can be down with greater technical challenge with equal emotional impact, then I’ll prefer that. In some cases, though, there’s a degree of trade-off, and in a case like that, a successful song is one that I feel strikes an ideal balance. Unfortunately, sometimes and otherwise great song is ruined when that balance is missed, especially when the artist feels they have to prove something and make a song more complex than it really should be.

So, I guess, for me it’s more like I evaluate songs with both the emotional impact, melody, and all that stuff on one axis, and technical proficiency on the other. An ideal song rates highly on both axes. But for a song where that’s not possible, depending on which part is more important, it should still try to maximize those values within that.

I love it. Sometimes I’m not really looking to be moved or for a particularly enthralling melody, and I just want something intellectually stimulating or something that blows my mind. And, of course, being live at a concert watching a musician play something that is technically challenging is an awesome experience.

20

I liked it, though I agree with WordMan and pulykamell that it could do with a bit more structure. Admittedly this is a sort of music I haven’t really listened to in a long time, so I’m not the most appropriate guy to judge.