Musicians vs. Non-musicians

[Dead Winter]

Personally, and this is just an opinion, I feel that musicians have the upper hand in the judging of music because of obvious reasons...we play this shit.

Now I'm not saying that the others can't have an opinion and have their own personal tastes, but when a non-musician makes the statement that a band "sucks", they are usually basing it on personal taste, and not ability.

When I say a band sucks, I'm basing it on the lack of ability, even though I may like the song. Nirvana sucked as musicians, with the exception of Dave Grohl, but they put out great music. Bands like Korn, Limp Bizkit, and Linkin Park suck all the way around...they can't play and their music stinks.

This is my view on things...if you can't play an instrument, don't go around saying how a band sucks because you don't like the song. Personal taste and musical ability are two COMPLETELY different animals. Hell, even if you do play, don't rule out the entire band because you didn't like one of their songs.

I got into a debate like this with a friend of mine who has no musical ability whatsoever. He said that Megadeth sucked, and not only that, but Dave Mustaine WASN'T a good guitarist. Now, I'm not saying that Dave is the be all end all of all guitarists, but he can DEFINITELY hold his own, and has written some masterpieces. He may not have liked some of Megadeth's music, but Megadeth aren't a bunch of no-talent ass clowns like Korn....which by the way he thinks is a great band.

This is my personal view, any takers?

 

[Till Fjalls]

I'd agree that musicians who have been playing for long enough (and actually take it seriously) will learn a lo tof things that make them listen to music differently than your average music listener. Certainly the reviews of bands will be different, since a person without knowlegde of music can't usually dig deep enough into a piece to see certain things the band may be doing. But then again, I think some can. I am sure a non-musician can become a "professional listener" and still have valid arguments about artists sucking or what-not, though they may not be able to find the terminology to explain what they want to say.

 

[xenophobe]

It doesn't really matter either way.

Musicians are opinionated as hell anyways, and a person will like what they like.

For example, I think RUSH SUCKS... As musicians, they've all very talented. Can't stand the music though.

A lot of musicians and non musicians will like what they like regardless, though musicians can be quite a bit more critical...

To analogize it, you don't need to own a vinyard to critique wine.

 

[7 Dying Trees]

To be honest, I'd rather rate a band on their song writing ability. Anyone can build up good technique and work on their skill if they practice long enough, but the real talent lies in writing a good song.

Unfortunately that's always rated subjectively. Damn it! Back to square one....

 

[Death inc.]

It shure is true that people who not play an instrument at all rate bands diffrent in comparison with musicians. Especially the more technical bands like Dream Theater and Symphony X will be to complicated for them to listen and the technical apect of their work will find no ground to florish in the ears of an non-musician. But, as one of you blokes allready said, a non-musician can grow into someone who learns to appreciate technical music because he has compered and seen the difficulty of the music.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Originally posted by thrashmetal78
Now I'm not saying that the others can't have an opinion and have their own personal tastes, but when a non-musician makes the statement that a band "sucks", they are usually basing it on personal taste, and not ability.

I'm a musician too but this is the same high and mighty view that musicians have of themselves that I hate. Of cource a non-musician bases what they think of a band on if they like it or not, so do I and everyone else.

 

[Introdeker]

Because something is hard to do, it doesn't mean it's good to do, nor that it's good to see/listen to other people doing it nor anything at all. The only thing that can be afirmed upon the fact that something is hard to do is that fact itself. Actually, not even that can be said, since what's hard or easy is subjective. So the best you can say as a musician is that you believe some part is hard as hell to play.

But... so what? I believe that driving planes is something hard to do and extremelly risky if you don't know what you're doing... and that doesn't mean I'll respect pilots anymore than anybody else just because they do something most people would find hard to acomplish - it's their choice for god's sake, they could just be out there driving cars like everybody else.

Now, taking that analogy in mind, let me move on: should a music be considered any better just because it's harder to play? Hell no! If a musician believes he could transmit the same message, the same feeling (or even gain the same amount of money for those comercial minds out there) with a really easily playable song and he decides to do it the hard way, it's a problem of his and only his. What happens is that generally easy and catchy are ideas that just don't go along with certain moods and then we need to use more complex things. If the world needed not so many math calculations for nearly everything that involves human technology, I'm pretty sure we'd have only the four, maybe the two, most basic math operations.

So, in conclusion, I really don't believe that a song that's hard to play is better because it's hard to play. Following this belief, I therefore don't agree musicians know any better about music because they know how hard it is to play a song or how much time and effort it takes to achieve such results.

Any music listener actually can tell when something sounds slow and with little variation (in the case of guitars, that would be a sign that the musician wasn't really moving his fingers around very much). In fact, music listeners know better about how good a music is: the time musicians spend improving their playing skills, listeners can use to hear music, and experience in this field is extremelly important. Of couse they won't know how things were done to achieve what they've been listening, but that won't matter anyway.

I totally agree with the guy that said that listeners wouldn't know the right words to express themselves - that's really the only difference amongst both classes in the music listening field of knowledge.

PS: To the guy who said Dave Grohl was a good musician: ??? That I just can't understand. Nirvana's drumming in most songs is what I like to call "sleeping drummer style". It really sounds like he's very close to be falling asleep - or at least, when I start listening to it, I am

 

[Nate The Great]

Dave Grohl is involved in underground metal more than people realize. I is supposedly working on some stoner/doom stuff with one of the guys from Cathedral. He has also been seen wearing a Cannibal Corpse shirt while playing with Foo Fighters. That was just some info I thought I'd pass on.

 

[lord667]

If you're saying that a band sucks even though you like their songs, then you're missing the point. Of course, quality musicianship is "better" if you're comparing technical ability...but how many inconsequential fret-fondlers have graduated from Berklee over the years?

Of course, sloppiness is a different thing altogether...but sloppy bands don't write good songs, or if they do, they can't play them properly anyway. A good standard of playing is, or should be, a given in our sort of music...being able to play in time, not make mistakes and block strings all the time, and so on. It's like learning to write...in the beginning, you get a gold star for tidy handwriting, but soon enough, the day comes when nobody is impressed by your rows of impeccable a's anymore, and they start demanding stories, poems and essays. And all of a sudden, the weight of the marks shifts, from presentation to content.

Just like playing guitar. By the time you get around to writing and recording songs, you should be at the stage of development where you can fully realise them, so they can stand or fall by their quality. Cackhanded gimps, who dropped out of "Guitar School" too early, and scalar speed-merchants who are still trying to sell themselves on their neat handwriting even after graduation, can both go straight to the bottom of the pile.

 

[numchuck]

I am a musician, and I've had my phase of intellectual ejaculation where you sit around and pick apart every song you listen too, basing all your favorite bands on their guitar solos. I like to think, however, that I've grown out of that. Dave Mathews Band, while they are very talented musicians, suck. Yet bands like Nirvana, while not terribly technically saavy, have song writing skills that more than make up for it.

If you are ever planning to put out a record, you probably want to appeal to the masses. Now, in a perfect world, everyone would be a musician and appreciate the nuances and details you put in the music, but the reality is, if you want to make money, you have to appeal to the non-musicians with a good hook and a catchy chorus.

I am DEFINITELY not trying to say that you should put out records solely to make money. If that were true we would have no Death, Iced Earth, Nevermore, etc. I'm simply saying that when someone says "that Locrian lead over the V VII III progression is great" is no more valid than when someone else says "the guitar sounds cool".

 

[Ibsen]

I agree that it is not so much about skill but more about songwriting. However, a songwriter, like a musician, will actually know how much effort the songwriter put in. Sometimes the effort isn't so much in the skill involved as much as it is in the creativity involved. In this sense, musicians would generally have a better perception as far as quality than the average person simply because they are closer to being a songwriter (if they are not songwriters already) than the average listener. I know that this is not a definite thing, as there are exceptions to this and all other rules. However, I can tell you from personal experience that this is justified. Before I started playing, I was listening to Nu-metal and all that other poser music. I've been playing guitar for about a year and a half and now I'm listening to stuff like Opeth, Rhapsody, Symphony X, Dark Tranquillity, The Sins of thy Beloved, and other classy music. I have also begun to appreciate classical music as well as the quality in other forms of music. And to think that a year and a half a go I was listening to the ultimate in poser music. This is an example on the effect of musicianship on musical taste and judgement.

 

[Sacha]

I think musicians tend to sometimes be the MOST closed minded, judgemental pricks of all sometimes... but they DO have a RIGHT to judge a little more than just a listener IMO. But a lot of times, musicians music that they MAKE is shit to me, because I can hear a lack of originality, effort, creativity, etc...but then a lot of people (non-musician and musician) like these bands anyways, so who am I to judge? If the amount of people who like a band decided how good they are, then that would mean Britney and NSYNC make the best music in the world today. That would also mean that Korn, Bizkit, and Pantera are the best metal bands because they sell the most, but I think NOT! If you concentrate on marketing, promotion, and having a huge entertaining live show or a pretty female singer, then were does the music fit? That is the most important thing to me, THE MUSIC, and if my IMAGE isn't MARKETABLE enough oh well I guess I'll just starve...better then selling out my values of making music that expresses something INSIDE, not coming from outside pressures like making money or being successful or what other people think in this shit business...
I could go on on this topic for days...

-Sacha

 

[Timmeth]

Originally posted by enditol
I think musicians tend to sometimes be the MOST closed minded, judgemental pricks of all sometimes...
-Sacha

You must not think very much. Because I know many musicians who are very open minded. My brother is an extremly open minded person when it comes to music. He like a variety of genres. From Metal, to Techno, to Rap, he likes it all. Don't ask me why he likes them, I don't know. You're going to have to ask him. The same could be said for me. I am a musician who likes AND respects a different variety of music. Ranging from Jazz, to Classical, to Metal. It's all welcomed into my world. I just proved your opening wrong, Bleh!?

 

[Timmeth]

Originally posted by Ibsen
I agree that it is not so much about skill but more about songwriting. However, a songwriter, like a musician, will actually know how much effort the songwriter put in. Sometimes the effort isn't so much in the skill involved as much as it is in the creativity involved. In this sense, musicians would generally have a better perception as far as quality than the average person simply because they are closer to being a songwriter (if they are not songwriters already) than the average listener. I know that this is not a definite thing, as there are exceptions to this and all other rules. However, I can tell you from personal experience that this is justified. Before I started playing, I was listening to Nu-metal and all that other poser music. I've been playing guitar for about a year and a half and now I'm listening to stuff like Opeth, Rhapsody, Symphony X, Dark Tranquillity, The Sins of thy Beloved, and other classy music. I have also begun to appreciate classical music as well as the quality in other forms of music. And to think that a year and a half a go I was listening to the ultimate in poser music. This is an example on the effect of musicianship on musical taste and judgement.

I am going have to agree with everything said here.

 

[Ibsen]

Originally posted by Timmeth


I am going have to agree with everything said here.

Thank you...I'm glad someone agrees with me.

 

[Timmeth]

Originally posted by Ibsen


Thank you...I'm glad someone agrees with me.

It makes sense, so I agreed.

 

[Dead Winter]

Wow, didn't know so many people felt so passionately about this topic...but then again, we ARE musicians...it's a given.

 

[Zeff]

This thread kicks ass.

I have been playing some sort of instrument for the past 10 years. Trumpet, Piano, quads/marchingband, and guitar. I've been in a band ever since I got a guitar 6 years ago. When I started out I only was into technical stuff, yngwie, vai ect... but I later got into a more complete idea of what a band should be. Bands play songs, and a song should have an identity. From a musicians standpoint when writing a song I almost always want to have some sort of bad ass shred thing in it because I like knowing that I can rip off a barrage of 16ths at 160bpm, but that's not the point. I try to always write a song as if I was an 'average joe' that didn't know a c# from a f. This way I can think about what the song needs instead of what I want.

When I listen to music I tend to compare my ability to whomever I'm listening to, but it is hard to listen with an open mind. I think there is a point of technical proficcency that when reached a musician changes thier view on music. It's like a peak that I can say 'hey I'm better than that guy, so they suck'.

I'm getting sleepy so I'll stop.

 

[Metal is Religion]

I am a musician and i like talent in songs. Some songs i like arent really complex, but i still like them. I find pretty much every band on American MTV has no talent and gets WAY too much money for it. I can write more complex shit and im not even getting paid!!!!

 

[HemiDuty]

hey metal muso's, this is my first post here. i just want to say, this board looks great, and i am sure to end up an addict, if only i can find the time.

as for the subject at hand, i too am of the opinion that muso's are, on average, better suited to making critical appraisals of music.

as for those who make music primarily for fame or profit, fuck the cunts. i detest them. they only add to the world's already considerable problems. ahh i have much to add to this but i must get a little sleep.