A Pro Musician Answers Your Questions About Professional Music

[Undertoad]

Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.

My own example of this is the Hooters, who started with a *wonderful* 5 song local EP that everybody in Philly heard, it just rocked. And then we were all deeply disappointed when they did some of the same songs on their major debut. They had enough studio time to slick-ify their sound, which just ruined the songs, from our perspective.

Then there's, like, Ben Folds, who is clearly quite talented as a player and yet there's a certain lovely imprecision about how he plays. He tours with a grand piano, which must be a constant tuning nightmare, and yet he throws his stool at it at the end of the show.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.

My own example of this is the Hooters, who started with a *wonderful* 5 song local EP that everybody in Philly heard, it just rocked. And then we were all deeply disappointed when they did some of the same songs on their major debut. They had enough studio time to slick-ify their sound, which just ruined the songs, from our perspective.

Then there's, like, Ben Folds, who is clearly quite talented as a player and yet there's a certain lovely imprecision about how he plays. He tours with a grand piano, which must be a constant tuning nightmare, and yet he throws his stool at it at the end of the show.

Oh, God. I must remind myself that I have work to do and I can't take the time to compose a novella-length response to this. What a goldmine of discussion this opens up. I will be revisiting this topic as soon as possible. Edit: This is drivin' me crazy. I'd like to see everyone weigh in on this.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.

My own example of this is the Hooters, who started with a *wonderful* 5 song local EP that everybody in Philly heard, it just rocked. And then we were all deeply disappointed when they did some of the same songs on their major debut. They had enough studio time to slick-ify their sound, which just ruined the songs, from our perspective.

Then there's, like, Ben Folds, who is clearly quite talented as a player and yet there's a certain lovely imprecision about how he plays. He tours with a grand piano, which must be a constant tuning nightmare, and yet he throws his stool at it at the end of the show.

Whew.

Like Flint, I could write a novel about this.

I think I come down on this side of the argument: the cases you've cited are not a problem of being "too good", they're an issue of being very bad at artistry, and overcompensating on something technical. That technical thing can be studio editing, use of error-correcting software, or just highly technical execution of difficult playing.

Artistry is the craft of knowing what matters, at least that's part of it. It's knowing that the thing that matters most is this passionate thing here, more than this technical thing here. That's not always the case - if the guitarist hits a very passionate clunker of a note, then the technical matters waaaaay more than the passion. Artistry is knowing the difference.

I almost came to blows with an artist on an album last summer. That never, ever happens, I'm a very low-key guy. I know this artist really well, and we have a long history, so I treat him a little differently in the studio. We were recording a song that was wide open, exposed fender rhodes and voice, and that's it. The rhodes was bleeding into the vocal mic, and there were all kinds of things that were technically bad on the song. But, in the middle of the verse, he sang this incredible, soul-wrenching vocal that had a crack right in the middle of it.

The crack was wrong (technically) but it was right, in every way, for the song. He wanted to trash it and start over. I fought to keep it exactly as it was. I was right. He was wrong. He was too close to the project to see it. Eventually, he kept it in, and everyone who hears the record just goes nuts over that song.

It's not an issue of being "too good", it's an issue of knowing what matters for a particular song. Which stuff is important changes based on genre, the mood, the instrumentation, the specific song, all of that has to come into consideration, but it's the job of the artist to be very, very good at picking out the thing that matters.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.
...

Disclaimer, this is a drummer's perspective. In short, this is a question of "micro-timing" which is what makes or breaks a groove. In the thread about syncopation I talked about subdivisions of the beat but never got back to what made Motown/John Bohnam "behind the beat" backbeats sound so great. I mentioned that Neil Peart is called the Professor because everything he does is cold, calculated math. But I never defined the difference as existing outside "the grid" of standard subdivisions. The difference in what creates a "groove" are in tiny "micro" timings. Milliseconds of variation that create a push and pull within a series of simple notes. That make Charlie Watts somehow sound different from Ringo Starr, playing "the same" beat. And the reason that 10 year old kids can "learn to play" a Vinnie Colaiuta beat off YouTube, but it doesn't quite sound right.

The micro-variations can be intentional, or more often the result of poor mechanics (unintentional). Learning the physics of how a stick rebounds, or when to play heel-up or heel-down, can allow you to control the feel of your beat rather than having it dictated by stiff, limited motions. You can also adopt a physical "attitude" on the kit in order to emulate a historical sound, i.e. sitting goofy like a big band dude in a suit.

Can you be too precise? Dave Weckl claims that people complained about his time feel for years, because he was too perfect. He had to learn how to relax and play looser. A tiny, almost unmeasurable amount looser. Afterwards he seemed better able to deliver what people wanted. Steely Dan did this too, buy the way, with every song. They created the perfect song in the studio, and then deconstructed it intentionally in order to get a human feel back in there. This "humanized" version was released to the album. I would say that they were successful, but I guess some people prefer... looser standards.

In answer to the very first iteration of your question, can you be "too good"? I would say, no. If you are sufficiantly good, you will know what is needed in a situation. Playing what is not needed or wanted cannot ever be classified as good.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by Flint

Disclaimer, this is a drummer's perspective. In short, this is a question of "micro-timing" which is what makes or breaks a groove. In the thread about syncopation I talked about subdivisions of the beat but never got back to what made Motown/John Bohnam "behind the beat" backbeats sound so great. I mentioned that Neil Peart is called the Professor because everything he does is cold, calculated math. But I never defined the difference as existing outside "the grid" of standard subdivisions. The difference in what creates a "groove" are in tiny "micro" timings. Milliseconds of variation that create a push and pull within a series of simple notes. That make Charlie Watts somehow sound different from Ringo Starr, playing "the same" beat. And the reason that 10 year old kids can "learn to play" a Vinnie Colaiuta beat off YouTube, but it doesn't quite sound right.

The micro-variations can be intentional, or more often the result of poor mechanics (unintentional). Learning the physics of how a stick rebounds, or when to play heel-up or heel-down, can allow you to control the feel of your beat rather than having it dictated by stiff, limited motions. You can also adopt a physical "attitude" on the kit in order to emulate a historical sound, i.e. sitting goofy like a big band dude in a suit.

Can you be too precise? Dave Weckl claims that people complained about his time feel for years, because he was too perfect. He had to learn how to relax and play looser. A tiny, almost unmeasurable amount looser. Afterwards he seemed better able to deliver what people wanted. Steely Dan did this too, buy the way, with every song. They created the perfect song in the studio, and then deconstructed it intentionally in order to get a human feel back in there. This "humanized" version was released to the album. I would say that they were successful, but I guess some people prefer... looser standards.

In answer to the very first iteration of your question, can you be "too good"? I would say, no. If you are sufficiantly good, you will know what is needed in a situation. Playing what is not needed or wanted cannot ever be classified as good.

Heheh...He said beat off...

related link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhxnHVgL9PA