Explain what you mean. From my understanding, Les Espaces is right that how modern performers generally play rubato in Chopin is different than how Chopin himself understood/intended rubato (and much of his work does not even contain markings for rubato, yet are played that way.) From what I’ve read about him, his idea of rubato was more keep the beat steady in the left hand, play the right freely, but if you listen to contemporary recordings, there’s a far more liberal interpretation of rubato. I don’t think Les Espaces is commenting on Chopin’s use of rubato, but rather on performers of Chopin’s pieces use of rubato.
Rubato is dragging the phrasing, yes? An extreme version is Ray Charles on America the Beautiful. Chopin allowed his right hand to play a smidge behind his left/rhythm hand?
To me, that is not slop. That is phrasing. He’s not pushing his technique and risking a flaw.
So happy to be educated here - I am tossing out a strawman.
so judging by the way I play guitar hero (only getting 65% right)I’d be not that bad ?
actually one could argue the Ramones were masters of live slop because joey couldn’t remember the words to the songs he wrote half the time dee dee wasn’t sober enough to play them right and everyone else just played whatever they wanted to
in fact that leant a certain cache to their live shows as they really never played a song the same way twice and would often restart the same song 2 or 3 times … fans would go to 3 or 4 shows in a row and point out the screw ups …
Look, I am not the Arbiter of Slop™, but that sounds different to me. That’s muscling through a song, half-assed or stoned or whatever. Perhaps “slop adjacent” if you will 
but not the same thing. “Punk” is its own chapter of geek parochialism, okay?
ETA: by the way, to be clear: huge Ramones fan. But still not slop.
well true what your looking for is some what intentional slop I concede the point 
I’m going by what most of my family says when ever I play the ramones " Geeze what is that slop ya listening to ?
Rubato is not something I would characterize as slop. It’s a (mostly) conscious pushing and pulling of the tempo by the performer and/or composer. There are different types, one of which is where there is a solid rhythmic backbone and the melody line plays with the tempo, but robbing one note of time means adding time to another note so it all lines up at the end of the bar, and another is where the tempo as a whole slows down and bars are stretched or sped up, but eventually returning to a base tempo. It’s easy to overdo.
Some of what you call “slop” is interpretation. Bending notes, playing ahead of or behind the beat, stretching or compressing notes, etc. aren’t sloppy when done deliberately for effect. Even a highly-skilled musician usually won’t play music exactly as written. Music played this way sounds sterile, like it was played by a machine.
Here’s a midi file of Gavotte en Rondeau from Violin Partita Number 3 by J.S. Bach.
Here is the same thing played by Itzhak Perlman.
The midi version has no slop, and it sounds mechanical. The Perlman version is played expertly, and it sounds warm, human and interesting. The difference is interpretation that deviates from the music as written (that and the tone of an actual violin compared to that of the midi file, which is not what we’re addressing here).
There are musicians who actually are sloppy. In some cases it’s lack of skill, and in other cases it’s a part of their style. Billie Holiday had a lot of slop - she was often off-pitch, and her voice would crack. That’s part of what made her Billie Holiday. Ella Fitzgerald was close to technically perfect, but Billie Holiday’s approach worked better for a lot of material. Ella Fitzgerald singing “Strange Fruit” wouldn’t have the same impact. On the other hand, Fitzgerald was better on things like “Fascinating Rhythm,” where spot-on timing and intonation are critical.
Thelonious Monk is another one who was artistically sloppy. Art Tatum was technically flawless, but I’d rather listen to Monk.
Thelonious is a good example. I remember as a high schooler coming across a faithful transcription of one of his performances – I think it was “Nice Work If You Can Get It” – and it had all sorts of flubs in it. Trying to play through it, I couldn’t understand how he made it work. Then, years later, I finally heard the recording it was transcribed from. The guy just played with so much conviction and impeccable phrasing and touch, that even the “wrong” notes sounded right.
Jeff - I can’t get the midi file to work, but get your points. Love the Billie vs Ella example; it gets at exactly the point I’m trying to explore. Billie sang with a lot of slop and her funky tonality, but was so inside the song you heard her humanity.
Monk, man his fingers are so big, with huge clubby fingertips and that rigid, dabbing style. I’ve heard his peers say he was a wonderful technical pianist but it looks like he’s throwing darts ;). Yes, much prefer him to precise players. There’s joy in Monk’s slop. ETA: by the way, that “darts” comment might sound like I don’t respect Monk’s chops. No way - he knew and played a chord palette I couldn’t imagine. But he favored techniques that involved slop - he hit adjacent keys because it sounded good in his lick.
With rubato - got it. There’s a fine line between adding color and character, and over-interpreted, pretentious twaddle. I remember listening to that Windham Hill piano guy who covered Vivaldi. I was a teenager and decidedly not versed in Classical, but even I was thinking, whoa, that’s a bit much.
Yes, that’s exactly what I meant.
This reminds me of a very obvious mistake in **Bill Evans & Jim Hall **'s recording of My Man’s Gone Now (great interpretation by the way, by two of my favourite jazzmen on their respective instruments). Towards the end of Hall’s solo at 3:08, you can hear him slip and play the open high E string. Pretty jarring but how does he deal with it? Not by doing another take or pretending that nothing has happened. He plays it some more, adds a few notes around it as if to say: “You think it’s wrong? Well, I’m going to make it work”. And he does.
Oh man! That’s hilarious - a total clam note that he references and builds on. Brilliant slop. Yes I love those two - I have Undercurrents but will have to get that CD, too.
Crotalus, if you check this thread I will call back to your old post about SRV’s version of Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) vs Jimi’s. When I first heard I preferred Stevie’s - I liked how he “folded the corners a bit more crisply” on his lead work with his more-precise wah use. But the more I listen…
I had forgotten about this old thread.
I came to appreciate slop late. When I was a teenager learning to play lead guitar, all I knew how to do was copy what was played on records, and I tried to do it as faithfully and precisely as my ears and fingers would allow. When I was in my late 30s, I took lessons from Carl Filipiak, a friend from my youth who had become a great player and teacher. Carl loved a lot of the same music from the 60s that I did, and we worked on a lot of Hendrix, Page and Clapton stuff in our lessons. Carl is a very precise player, and I came away from those lessons able to play things like Little Wing and Voodoo Chile very precisely, and also no longer as interested in playing precisely.
Listening to Hendrix and Page and even Clapton during and after those lessons made me realize that what they captured in their recordings was the sound of something being created, not some composed lead that they were trying to faithfully reproduce. I had viewed their recorded solos as sacred texts, when they were really a creative moment, captured. I’m not a fluent enough player to totally abandon the “text” when I play songs by my favorite guitarists, but I have become much more open to straying a bit, and I still like the tension squeegee posted about more than perfect precision.
Intermodulation is just as good as Undercurrent. I’ve never been able to decide which one I like best. The former may be a wee bit more… experimental is definitely not the right word… let’s say sophisticated. Anyway, if you liked one, you’re very likely to like the other.