Can a player ever be too good?

[Bilbo]

[i]‘In music…pure tone, true pitch, exact intonation, perfect harmony, rigid rhythm, even touch and precise time play a relatively small role. They are mainly points of orientation for art… The unlimited resources for vocal and instrumental expression lie in artistic deviation from the pure, the true, the exact, the perfect, the rigid, the even and the precise. This deviation from the exact is, on the whole, the medium for the creation of the beautiful – for the conveying of emotion’[/i] – Carl E. Seashore.

It’s a good point: is that why players like Alain Caron, Jeff Berlin etc aren’t as successful as their astonishing techniques would lead you expect? Their playing is too perfect, too clinical. Or is this an argument against excessive attention to technique at the expense of musicality?

For those who are interested, Carl Emil Seashore (1866-1949) was a prominent American psychologist who was particularly interested in audiology, the psychology of music, the psychology of speech and stuttering, the psychology of the graphic arts and measuring motivation and scholastic aptitude. He devised the Seashore Tests of Musical Ability in 1919, a version of which is still used in schools in the United States.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Stylon Pilson]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='257911' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:08 AM']Can a player ever be too good?[/quote]

I think that I might be.

[b]Edit:[/b] Scratch that, I [i]know[/i] I am.

S.P.

Edited August 8, 2008 by stylonpilson

[leonshelley01]

Some virtuoso musicians do leave me a little cold. Whilst I respect them and wish I had their technique, being "flash" for the sake of it is just a bit tedious. It is especially bad with guitarists, some of whom seem to think trem arm abuse and high "widdle" rate compensate for feel and whether it evens fits in the song.

[alexclaber]

No. If a player was too perfect he certainly couldn't be described as too clinical - that perfection would encompass greater emotional expressiveness through control of timing, tuning, dynamics etc. There are plenty of players nowadays that appear to have the technical dexterity of Jaco but I've yet to hear one that is so expressive and creative as well

Alex

[Galilee]

I have no particularly erudite thoughts on the subject, but I think it's pretty clear that, in terms of absolute popularity, technique is not going to make much difference. In point of fact, the real virtuosos are probably less popular than they could be if they hid their chops under a metaphorical bushel sometimes.

[jakenewmanbass]

I am undoubtedly turned off by perfection without an equal dollop of musicality in the mix. It's very rare to find both qualities in a player. If we are talking bass there are a handful of guys through history that make it for me.
In the wider world of music there are some notable examples especially in the classical world as despite the fact that they are regurgitating others creative output there is a massive emphasis on expression beyond technique in classical performance.
In Jazz the guys that really do it for me are the ones that have technical facility that make their musical thoughts appear effortless, instant access to their musical soul.
Wayne Shorter, Jaco (although I think he overdid it sometimes) Bill Evans, Miles, Oscar Peterson, Stan Getz, Kenny Wheeler, Louis Armstrong, Cannonball Adderly are just some of the guys that I listen to and hear what they are [i]saying[/i] rather than [i]what it is[/i] they are playing.

Edited August 8, 2008 by jakesbass

[rjb]

I'd agree up to a point, but I think the issue is less about ability and more to do with taste.

Some of the "top" solo bass players make rather tasteless music that is based around technical showboating. Also, in a band situation a great technical player can definitely overplay a part. I much prefer the more laid back, groove oriented approach of guys like James Jamerson and Stu Zender.

Give me groove over notes per second any day.

[bnt]

Oh, definitely: perfection is boring, and I prefer players who aren't perfect. If you listen to Geddy Lee, for example, he's quite technically sloppy in some ways. He slurs from note to note, his right-hand fingering is not precise, and he tends to move up and down the neck when he could hold position (even on his 4-string). After listening to him for years, I seem to have picked up abstracted versions of some of his "flaws" e.g. re-packaging slight slurs as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_note"]grace notes[/url], a concept I learned years ago when I studied bagpipes.

Also, I think there are virtues to moving up and down the neck, even if you don't have to, which is something Chris Squire does too. I find there's a different tonality, it can be an attention-grabber, and it helps basslines "breath" a little. (That's the best way I have of describing the effect!)

In Japanese culture, there's a concept called [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi"]wabi-sabi[/url][/i]: the appreciation of imperfection, even the deliberate introduction of a tiny flaw in something that would otherwise be perfect. Actually, [i]wabi-sabi[/i] might make a good band name..!

Edited August 8, 2008 by bnt

[chris_b]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='257911' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:08 AM']....is that why players like Alain Caron, Jeff Berlin etc aren’t as successful as their astonishing techniques would lead you expect? Their playing is too perfect, too clinical....[/quote]
These players, and others like them, don't have the repertoire to match their ability. These guys develop extraordinary techniques and then just shred!!

[Rich]

The thing that first turned me on to Alain Caron was his sense of melody. For me, he is the master of the tuneful fretless bass solo. I love his playing, and if it was just pointless shredding I wouldn't. Yes he can play blisteringly fast at times, but it's always perfectly in tune and melodic. MHO of course.

[Bilbo]

Its interesting but I find Caron to be emotionally flat. Like the notes are there but their absolute perfection in pitch, timing etc render them soulless. I have 4 or 5 UZEB cds and can't criticise his technique but the music is just lifeless.

Get some funk in there, Caron!!

Edited August 8, 2008 by bilbo230763

[wulf]

[quote name='bnt' post='257935' date='Aug 8 2008, 10:31 AM']In Japanese culture, there's a concept called [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi"]wabi-sabi[/url][/i]: the appreciation of imperfection, even the deliberate introduction of a tiny flaw in something that would otherwise be perfect. Actually, [i]wabi-sabi[/i] might make a good band name..![/quote]
[url="http://www.last.fm/music/Wabi+Sabi"]Already taken[/url]! It is a neat name though.

Wulf

[alexclaber]

[quote name='bnt' post='257935' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:31 AM']Oh, definitely: perfection is boring, and I prefer players who aren't perfect. If you listen to Geddy Lee, for example, he's quite technically sloppy in some ways. He slurs from note to note, his right-hand fingering is not precise, and he tends to move up and down the neck when he could hold position (even on his 4-string).[/quote]

I don't get why perfection is being mistaken for robotically precise playing. I suspect that those slurs, imprecise fingering and moving up and down the neck are deliberate. What's the point of "holding position" if it sounds more musical to shift?

I'm far from perfect but sometimes I'll really hammer at my bass, get fret clatter, bend notes around, be loose with the time and make a generally angry racket because I want the music to sound angry! If I played that part neatly then it would sound less like I intended the music to sound and thus less perfect. The same is true for sounding greasy and funky and dirty. Or for getting than deep reggae burble to counter the skank. Etc etc.

Alex

[Geddys nose]

‘In music…pure tone, true pitch, exact intonation, perfect harmony, rigid rhythm, even touch and precise time play a relatively small role. They are mainly points of orientation for art… The unlimited resources for vocal and instrumental expression lie in artistic deviation from the pure, the true, the exact, the perfect, the rigid, the even and the precise. This deviation from the exact is, on the whole, the medium for the creation of the beautiful – for the conveying of emotion’[/i] – Carl E. Seashore.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nNGlaiVypU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nNGlaiVypU[/url]

[bassmandan]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='257911' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:08 AM'][i]‘In music…pure tone, true pitch, exact intonation, perfect harmony, rigid rhythm, even touch and precise time play a relatively small role. They are mainly points of orientation for art… The unlimited resources for vocal and instrumental expression lie in artistic deviation from the pure, the true, the exact, the perfect, the rigid, the even and the precise. This deviation from the exact is, on the whole, the medium for the creation of the beautiful – for the conveying of emotion’[/i] – Carl E. Seashore.[/quote]

..... exqueeze me, baking powder?!?

[cheddatom]

I think that the definition of perfection is interesting. A sphere can be called a perfect sphere if it has no flaws. Arguably, music, or any other art form for that matter, has no flaws. Even if you think you hear a mistake, it could have been intended. Music is either always perfect, or always flawed - but then (a lot of) you say that you need flaws in music, perfect music isn't as good! So flawed music is perfect? So they're not flaws? So there's nothing wrong with being perfect?

In the OP Bilbo, you liken Perfect to Clinical, when that's obviously not representative of your opinion.

It's deffinitely possible for a player to get so obsessed with technical prowess that he forgets to "feel" the music. I see this more with drummers and guitarists than bassists. However, I don't indulge in watching the more technical bassists mentioned here.

[BigRedX]

A truly great player knows when the piece calls for something really simple, can play it and won't bitch about the fact that they're doing it either.

[cheddatom]

A bass player is too good when he sits there playing nothing saying "It's all about what you DON'T play man".

[Alastair]

Hmm.

I don't think you can be too good. But it depends on what you mean by that statement. I think Jaco was bloody awesome, but I also think the same of Tim Commerford. If you're quating how good someone is on an instrument based on technical prowess...then I'd probably agree that there are a few bass players out there that seem to care more about technique and showing off than about playing music. In which case I suppose they are too good.

If that makes sense. :wacko:

[Kiwi]

[quote name='bnt' post='257935' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:31 AM']In Japanese culture, there's a concept called [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi"]wabi-sabi[/url][/i]: the appreciation of imperfection, even the deliberate introduction of a tiny flaw in something that would otherwise be perfect. Actually, [i]wabi-sabi[/i] might make a good band name..![/quote]
An example might be as an aesthetic device employed to reintroduce an element of spontaneity, individuality or quirkiness into a work that might otherwise appear too controlled, ordered or contrived.

For example, a zen buddhist monk may spend an hour sweeping and clearing a japanese garden path free of leaves so that the garden looks very well manicured. However at the end of his endeavours, he may feel the scene looks too interfered with so to ensure the scene does not lose its essential naturalness, he may grab the arm of a nearby maple and gently shake it so that a few leaves drop to the ground. An element of natural spontaneity is then reintroduced into the scene.

But back to the idea of perfection, FWIW I think there needs to be a distinction here between

1) Being an individual who feels they have achieved perfection at some point and
2) Being an individual who is constantly striving but never achieving perfection

Everyone probably has their own opinion of either. I think the former is likely to be arrogant, the latter is likely to be constantly frustrated by a lack of fulfillment in some manner. It begs the question in my mind about how relevant the concept of perfection actually is in any creative endeavour.

I don't think it is relevant.

Most genuinely creative endeavours I know of are started for their own sake. Ideally they should be adventures of some kind, the destination isn't the point, its what happens along the way. So if someone starts a creative endeavour with the objective of achieving perfection (assuming its a predetermined point) then it seems to me that the goal is taking precedent over the learning process.

However there's no reason in my mind why someone couldn't decide to explore ideas of perfection as a creative journey... ...I guess the important thing is that they're finding something meaningful in return for their efforts.

[xilddx]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='257981' date='Aug 8 2008, 12:17 PM']Its interesting but I find Caron to be emotionally flat. Like the notes are there but their absolute perfection in pitch, timing etc render them soulless. I have 4 or 5 UZEB cds and can't criticise his technique but the music is just lifeless.

Get some funk in there, Caron!![/quote]

I've never heard Alain Caron so I just looked and listened to this ..



Leaves me stone cold, it's horrible lifeless sh*t. There are many players out there with immense technique but very little expression and it's often mirrored in their audiences. It seems to me a lot of them end up pursuing the limits of technique and composition rather than the limits of expression. It seems as if there's no connection between their humanity and their music. Dream Theater are a case in point for me. Some people will always be impressed by technicality though and will have an emotional response to it. So I suppose it's all relative.

Zappa's players all had incredible chops but they had so much expression too, so if I want a lesson in both and get a big kick out of the music, that's what I listen too. That's the thing for me, great technical players sometimes need someone to tell them to shut the f*** up and play it with feeling.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='258062' date='Aug 8 2008, 01:32 PM']I think that the definition of perfection is interesting. A sphere can be called a perfect sphere if it has no flaws. Arguably, music, or any other art form for that matter, has no flaws. Even if you think you hear a mistake, it could have been intended. Music is either always perfect, or always flawed - but then (a lot of) you say that you need flaws in music, perfect music isn't as good! So flawed music is perfect? So they're not flaws? So there's nothing wrong with being perfect?[/quote]

you using some kinda platonic idea of perfection? where we reach to this perfect sphere of music. but in actual fact we are just creating a reflection of the perfect sphere of music or attempting to recreate something 'other'? in illustration imagine there is a cave......

Interesting stuff though.


Just listened to that clip you posted silddx. dont really care for the bass playing of mr caron but i reckon his keyboardest went and took his own life after that song, what was all that about?

[Kiwi]

[url="http://blip.tv/file/1089416/"]http://blip.tv/file/1089416/[/url]
Check out this vid of Gary Karr, posted in the EUB forum. Fast forward to 73:30 for a maestro's interpretation of the same issue. A man trapped in eternal frustration but recognised all the same?

[velvetkevorkian]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='257927' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:23 AM']I am undoubtedly turned off by perfection without an equal dollop of musicality in the mix. It's very rare to find both qualities in a player. If we are talking bass there are a handful of guys through history that make it for me.
In the wider world of music there are some notable examples especially in the classical world as despite the fact that they are regurgitating others creative output there is a massive emphasis on expression beyond technique in classical performance.
In Jazz the guys that really do it for me are the ones that have technical facility that make their musical thoughts appear effortless, instant access to their musical soul.
Wayne Shorter, Jaco (although I think he overdid it sometimes) Bill Evans, Miles, Oscar Peterson, Stan Getz, Kenny Wheeler, Louis Armstrong, Cannonball Adderly are just some of the guys that I listen to and hear what they are [i]saying[/i] rather than [i]what it is[/i] they are playing.[/quote]

I agree entirely about classical musicians.

Everyone seems to be equating "too good" with "too technical"- clearly there are players who have a massive technical facility, but IMHO being really good means much more than that. Is it possible to have too much technical facility? I would argue not, but its all in the use of that facility, and the expression that should go with it.

[ARGH]

Being good is when you can get yourself out of the sh*t YOU cause