Parts in rock music that can be legitimately said to be only playable by a "handful"?

I’m not a musician, so I’m not qualified to judge what’s hard and what’s not… so I’ll cite someone who IS qualified.

Tony Levin has been one of the top session bassists in the world for many years, having played on records by everyone from John Lennon to Paul Simon to Pink Floyd to Peter Gabriel. He’s also been the bassist for King Crimson.

Some years back, there were TWO versions of Yes going around- one with legal rights to the name and the other merely calling itself Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman & Howe. When ABW & H went on tour, they needed a bassist, because Chris Squire was in the band with legal rights to the name Yes. Bill Bruford got his King Crimson mate Tony Levin to join them on tour.

As I’ve said, Levin is one of the best in the world, and has mastered almost every style of music there is. But Levin has said that learning Chris Squire’s bass lines was the hardest thing he’s ever had to do as a musician.

So, if a guy with the skills and background of Tony Levin says Chris Squire’s bass lines were tough to duplicate, I’m willing take his word for it.

Some more thoughts on the technician versus musician struggle and the technical replication of music…

In the more classical realm of music one of the main things that get pushed by good teachers is using etudes or studies books. This is very well known among orchestral players, pretty well known amongst horn players, maybe a little known by your average guitarist-at-large type players, and unknown by most of the listening public. These books contain a bunch of different pieces, maybe 2 to 3 pages long at most, in all sorts of different keys, crazy fingerings, and patterns and jumps that are tough for your instrument. For example with my instrument, the saxophone, books like “Enseignement du Saxophone” by Marcel Mule and “48 Famous Studies for Oboe or Saxophone” by Ferling. And every other instrument (trumpet, violin, etc) has their own set of specific study books. So, the point of these books is to learn these studies… and I mean really learn them. The first step is to just be able to read and play them, the second step is to have all of them memorized and memorized to the point where you don’t even think of the notes any more, and the third step is where the real studying begins. You are supposed to take the studies and play them fast, play them slow, play them legato, play them staccato, transpose them into different keys…. really learn the nuances of your instrument. Now, back when I was playing a lot I could rip through those studies incredibly fast just because I was so familiar with them. It would blow the socks off of people that had never heard them before due to the speed and range of notes covered. It becomes a lot less impressive when you realized these were pieces of music that I returned to every now and again over the course of many years that I spent a good deal of time on and were completely internalized. So, does that make me an excellent musician? In my opinion no it does not, merely a good technician that put in the time and effort. On the other hand, if I were ever able to rip off something like that off the top of my head while on stage with a jazz combo, that is a different story… and I probably wouldn’t be a computer programmer :slight_smile: . That is the main reason where some of the guitar players that bill themselves as “classically trained” can play as quickly as they do.

All the jazz guys, guitar-gods, etc. have spent hours playing licks, doing studies like mentioned above, transcribing solos from other players and really learning the in and outs of their instruments. I’m sure Eddie Van Halen (and every 18 year old whiz) that can smash out Eruption, or Yngwie with his flurry of arpeggios, or Nuno Bettencourt playing Flight of the Bumblee have spent hours learning the techniques involved…. but is it something beyond what an average person can do if they spent the time? Again, I think it isn’t. As a weird example a couple of months back on NPR I was listening to a professor up in Canada that had built a robotic bag-pipe player that was only limited to the physical amount of time it took to vibrate the reeds in the bagpipe. The bag pipe robot was playing “Danny Boy” from start to finish in something crazy like 3 seconds. Is it true musicianship since no human could possibly play that?

So where does that musical magic happen where those “handful” moments exist? I think it’s when you have a player that has spent the time to perfect the rote technical mechanisms of his instrument (like a lot of the players mentioned in this thread) and is freed from the “thinking” aspect of music and he is with similar players in a live setting. The players can then start combining all the different things they’ve learned and studied over the years and collectively start melding that into new sounds. That’s the difference between listening to an awesome Jimmy Page solo on a Zeppelin album (of which there are a lot that only really good guitar players can play) versus watching a concert video of Zeppelin where all cylinders are firing with Page soloing, and you know that that energy can only be created in that moment with Page, Bonham, and Jones never to be repeated again. That is the true beauty of music.

You left out the capper to that story: Levin got sick shortly before the end of the tour, and had to drop out for the last few gigs. Another Bruford crony, Jeff Berlin, filled in at short notice, consequently having to learn both the Squire bass parts from the old Yes material and Levin’s parts from the ABWH originals almost overnight. The video and live CD released from that tour are from the Mountain View, California show, with Berlin on bass.

That urgency comes from having the drums play a 4/4 beat while the guitar (and strings?) play in 3/4; it keeps you off-balance, and then every 12 beats they meet up again and it all resolves. It picks up that great feeling of inevitability that gets satisfied at the resolution, like a really skillfully-written melody.

Cool song.

(I don’t mean to suggest anything negative about Bonham’s technique; in that particular song, I figured it was the part-mixing rather than the actual performance that made it work.)

This reminds me of one of the oddest things I ever played. I used to be in a band with an outstanding drummer named Ben. Ben was freaking amazing. Give him 2 time signitures and he could play them. You could tell him ‘left 5/4, right 7/8’ and his left side would do 5/4 and his right 7/8. I believe he became a percussionist with the Sante Fe Symphony but I can’t seem to find any info about that. Anyway, Ben, I and the bassist Pete had a song where everyone had their own time sig. We played it once live and it was a total bitch. I had to stand by my amp and ignore everybody else and just tap my foot. It was a strange piece. We never played it much because a) I screwed it up alot and b) only musicians found it interesting and they only found it interesting because we could play it. I don’t remember the time signitures because I did my best to forget the damned thing. It was a great idea but it should have stayed just that, a great idea.

Ah, musical masterbation, or ‘I’m playing it because I CAN’. But the tricky thing about this is that what one person thinks is pure musical masterbation another person might find to be musical heaven. Personally, I hate Mariah, Whitney and Celine’s music (though I’d do Mariah, she’s kinda hot). It all comes down to taste. I am sure that somewhere out there there is a person who thinks that Aretha doesn’t do enough when she sings. (Note, if I ever met that person I would have to beat them silly with a clue stick)

On a side note, this discussion makes me wonder if Chopin or Mozart were ever accused of being ‘too technical’ or something similar back when they were alive.

I’ll still thinks it comes down to whether ot not you get a particular piece of music. I don’t get Whitney’s whale song, but apparently a lot of other people do.

Slee

Non musician here, but what about Hendrix? Obviously, Hendrix was just freaking amazing, innovative and a hell of a guitarist both live and in the studio. Star Spangled Banner at Woodstock being just one example. IMHO, Stevie Ray Vaughn (who I saw live and much prefer his brother Jimmie’s playing in Fab Tbirds) doesn’t come close to capturing Hendrix.

Anyhoo, guitarists out there - any Hendrix that can only be played by Hendrix?

The first thing that comes to mind is The Star-Spangled Banner - no one has the audacity to try to cover that - or if they did, it wouldn’t come close.

Slee - violinist Niccolo Paganini (Yngwie’s big inspiration, btw) was known for being a technical superstar. I don’t know if he was accused of overplaying by any credible critics of the day, but can see the possibility. Franz Liszt was also known more for being a big-time piano gunslinger than anything else in his day.

jackelope - yep, the different time sigs contribute a ton to that, but I would also point to Bonham’s cymbal work. If you listen, you’ll hear that in and amongst the bombastic big-hit drumming, there is some subtle work that really keeps the rhythm surprisingly lighter than you’d expect. Bonham loved Motown and funk drummers and you can hear that in his work…