#102

Never heard of The Shaggs, had to look them up… cool!

6 Likes
#103

When treated as a trailhead for exploratory conversation, I enjoy the topic of “what is art”. I’m still ruminating Brian Eno’s definition, five years on: “art is everything that you don’t have to do”.

I value the curators, the accomplished creators, the virtuosos, and all the people who help me to find the ones that resonate with me. That said, I feel like the ludic, enriching? (I’m gesturing broadly at the upper parts of Maslow’s pyramid here) value of “doing that which we don’t have to do” is not spoken of enough, and for that reason I value this thread.

3 Likes
#104

I’m not going to make a specific argument for The Shaggs. Evidently, you’re coming to music from a very different perspective than myself (and a lot of others), which is fine. We don’t have to agree.

Suffice to say, if you’re not into it or don’t get it that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been musically significant… so much so that there’s a BBC documentary, a musical theatre show, lots of covers, and lots of articles to check out if you’re interested in see what people see in them and other bands like them.

I’ll also say that a lot of so-called “punk” bands (some that aren’t like The Shaggs and some that are or are influenced by them) offer their own take on complexity and depth outside of traditional notions of musicianship or virtuosity … but you seem pretty decided about all of this already.

10 Likes
#105

The Ramones, a band the music industry laughed at, were featured in a solo show at the Grammy museum last year.

#106

I didn’t mean for @emenel to feel like they have to argue on my behalf, so I apologize (or rather, I hope you don’t feel that way). I merely engaged on this topic because ‘talentlessness’ often yields non-trivial results, but perhaps only once systematized (because the results otherwise can’t be recognized as non-trivial if not evaluated according to the system from which it operates, which permits extrapolation and inference). I believe Shaggs—yes, like Bach and Coltrane (gasp)—developed a robustly singular compositional logic for composing and performing music in a systematic (repeatable) manner within ‘traditional’ genre constraints. On a purely technical, musicological—rather than naively aesthetic (e.g. “terrible”, “out of tune”)—level, one could discuss asymmetrical phrase lengths, complex harmonic rhythm, metric modulation, and types of unison as some of the saliently novel textures Shaggs introduced to otherwise “rock/pop band” ensemble music. (But they don’t need valorizations like this in order to be taken seriously, of course.) In other words, their work (intentionally, needless to say) contributed something innovative re: the structural organization of traditional music and the conventions of such. Their contributions were doubtlessly taken up by subsequent musicians and extrapolated. But it seems unwise to carry a discussion with one unwilling to accept its premise.

9 Likes
#107

Better than The Beatles!

4 Likes
#108

I appreciate the fresh angle at looking at musical activities. And I admit I’m definitely in the crowd of “habit-trackers”, striving and pushing - and buying self-help books on productivity, finishing stuff etc.

On the other hand, I can relate to feeling talentless. I could always sing in tune, but musicianship has never been easy. It took me years to learn to tune a guitar. And the intimidation of walking into guitar stores with kids younger than me playing Hendrix etc verbatim, well I have it tattooed under my skin.

Nevertheless, I think musical talent is something complicated to define. I think it can take many different forms. Some have an ear with perfect pitch, some have “muscular” gifts and some just have a creative approach open for discovery and ignoring “the rules”. And maybe most importantly, a childish joy for making small discoveries along the way.

Over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that the greatest gift/talent is to feel love and passion for something. My progress as a musician has been at snail speed. My younger brother learned everything instantly, could tell the chords from tune just by listening to it etc. Still, he never really knew what to do with it.

However we define talent or ambition, I think progress is inevitable. If you spend time doing something you will get better, or discover/learn something different. And everything you pick up can be a joy.

I was very fond of Jerry Saltz article in the Vulture “How to be an artist” – (I just ordered the book!). Not the least lesson 8: Redefine skill: " your skill will be whatever it is you’re doing differently."

You may not have a particular goal that you strive for, but if you choose to pick up an instrument instead of doing something passive, like watching tv. I think that choice and love is still some sort of talent. In my eyes at least.

5 Likes
#109

I have a lot in common with anyone who sees Bach and Coltrane as musical avatars. So much so that when the Shaggs get lumped in a triumvirate with Bach and Coltrane, I’m pretty sure some trolling is happening. The guy who made the Shaggs a thing was Frank Zappa — a well-known troll who only hired virtuosos for his own band.

#110

I want to propose a somewhat different definition of “talent”: I think it’s the ability to achieve what you want to do. If what you want to do is play a Rachmaninoff piano concerto, then this definition of talent is the same as the usual definition. But – as someone who legitimately likes The Shaggs – I’d say they surely meet this definition of talent, because they are able to recreate note-for-note their songs when playing live. This shows that their music wasn’t created randomly but was made with intention; and they achieved that intention. (Also, playing those songs live is probably pretty difficult!)

So, from this point of view, “talentless” means “not achieving what you want to do.” If you think you’re talentless, there are two paths forward: (a) work on reaching your goal or (b) change your goal. Option (b) is the essence of punk rock. From this point of view, lots of people who think they’re talentless actually aren’t.

3 Likes
#111

Also c) have a goal :slight_smile:

1 Like
#112

Goals are nice. But don’t forget to play!

(It’s pretty simple…)

5 Likes
#113

I found “practice” almost useless as a way to gain anything but the ability to re-render someone else’s creativity. I think “research” would be a healthier habit. Ear training, studying music theory, mapping chord space – those things I have found immensely valuable.

5 Likes
#114

Not sure if you meant to reply to me but I’ll answer anyway :smiley: Everything you mention is massively valuable but, depending on your goals, I think “practice” can be immensely useful in addition. Partially this is due to the extremely intimate nature by which you have to dissect the work of another creator. If that work is something you like then this insight I think can be invaluable to apply to your own creations.

The second reason is one of practicality. Presuming we are talking “practicing” instrument performance. It can be useful to try to obtain, and subsequently maintain, a level of technical ability that allows you to express what you want to musically, with minimum effort. To go far beyond that is possibly unnecessary but I think that is a pretty good target. Have your technical ability meet and allow your musical aspirations. It can be frustrating to be limited by it, a feeling a know all to well sadly.

I am presuming practice here means with musical expression beyond a point and not mechanical and repetitive drills (which can be counter productive). Ear training is the most overlooked thing to “research” out there. I fully agree with that.

I was only joking though :wink:, it’s cool to see that people are enjoying music. I do too! Wouldn’t do it otherwise.

2 Likes
#115

Really interesting post. It does make me think of this thread Sequencer for Subtle Music I posted at length in there about the subtleties and nuances of human performance. I think that is where I see the value which remains in the “rarefied human capacities”. I am sure there will be AI capable of that very soon but I guess that begins a slippery slope of where in the process there is human “value” left at that point. Maybe in the creation of the AI, something AI will eventually become better at… :joy:That’s a whole other topic though.

1 Like
#116

I think you might enjoy a book called Zen Guitar. Really gets down to the wisdom behind where you’re coming from.

I think it’s so important to have an art outlet that you specifically don’t try to get better at. Music stopped being that long ago, but every now and then I get an insane urge to go buy some paints and go nuts. So I do. I have no idea what I’m doing and I don’t care to learn – I just paint, with abandon, without talent, for no reason. It’s inherent joy at its more pure.

The urge has switched over to photography, so I think I’m gonna go there next once I can afford a camera. Can’t wait.

5 Likes
#117

thanks—the ‘human factor’ was the topic of this thread, too … still something I have to spend more time clarifying for myself. I do think that “human” and “non-human” (or whatever—I guess by AI one might say “artificial lifeform” or something) are definitely non-collapsible and am not convinced that AI, physical modeling using non-linear dynamics, etc. will change that. however the primary question for me: what is important about and local to human performances that might otherwise be lost when They (AI) don’t need us anymore. and how important on an epistemic level are “subtleties and nuances of human performance” for the continuation of music? and also: I think there’s a compelling argument to be made that, at this point, other forms of intelligences are desperately needed (co-operatively) for continued emergence of musical forms. I worry that ‘the way we play instruments’ or ‘the way we infer when playing instruments’ or whatever has plateaued and is possibly a material factor in the stagnation of a lot of music. especially in music adherent to 18th-19th c. theoretical principles.

1 Like
#118

Nice! There is a lot for me to catch up on there! Will get stuck in tomorrow (note to self, stop procrastinating, finish the edits).

#119

Interesting thread, much to think about.

For ‘The Silent Way’ sessions Miles told John McLaughlin “play like you don’t know how to play guitar”.

Is that what we are aiming for?

3 Likes
#120

[J.S.] Bach is sometimes held up as an examplar here.

His view: “What I have achieved by industry and practice, anyone else with tolerable natural gift and ability can also achieve.”

Lots of loaded terms in there!

What he achieved took such a tremendous amount of pain, loss, death, suffering, that I suspect most of us would rather keep our own lives (and level of talent) rather than swap with him.

1 Like
#121

Maria Bamford - Why Does Everything Have To Be So Good? (2020)

4 Likes