Help me understand music

[danlightbulb]

Bit weird this.

Its Sunday night and ive been out to the pub and had a few beers.

Ive come home and am watching Dire Straits on Sky Arts. This is an old gig, I dont know when from, but its early.

It sounds different to the later versions of their songs. The later versions sound more polished, more refined. The fundamental melody of each song is the same but the compilation sounds different.

I can play piano and am trying to learn guitar. I can play piano pretty well having been learning for a few years now, whereas guitar is quite new but Im picking it up well because I already know the theory.

Now, during this Dire Straits gig I was watching, well its fair to say that the keyboardist was not really playing anything I couldnt play. Mostly block chords. And what he did play was quiet mostly, drowned out by the rest of the band.

The same could be said for the other instruments, including the lead guitar played by Knopfler. Now im not disputing the guy was a genius on guitar. However it strikes me that what he played would not sound half as good if played without the rest of his band.

As someone who has strived to learn to play an instrument in later life, and always felt that what I can play was not good enough, I am now starting to think that actually my skills are good enough its just that I dont have the luxury of playing with others.

How do i solve this problem? I just dont have the option of playing with others. Am I forever not going to be good enough or is one driven from the other?

Is making good music fundamentally not about a single perfect skill on its own but about mutiple players of only adequate skill coming together?

There are no iconic bands today, not like 30 to 40 years ago. Technology now, has enabled anyone to technically learn how to play, but where is the innovation and creativity that there once was?

When there was nothing but 3 channels on tv and no internet and no social media, one could argue it was easier to break through?

Now, everyone is capable of playing an instrument, but where is the innovation?

 

[MookJong]

There is innovation everywhere, but it is much more to do with software now, some of the the things that happen in current mainstream pop music would have been impossible in the 80s and 90s. Audio is elastic and can basically be manipulated after the fact in any way you want now, it's actually quite overwhelming though. Sometimes limitation is what actually drives the best innovation.

As to your main question, yes usually in isolation one amazing instrument doesn't sound as good as 3 average ones because of the audio spectrum. Playing something simple on piano with two hands often sounds more impressive than something complex with one because you are filling in more of the audio spectrum. The interplay of the bass notes with the lead notes etc.

Contrasting sounds sitting in different parts of the audio spectrum but all playing in the same key is basically what makes western music sound cool to our ears. But there are really only so many chord progressions that work in mainstream pop and rock. All of these have pretty much been done to death now so innovation as far as songwriting goes will always be kind of limited. It is definitely true to say that some of the best melodies have already been written and that western music theory is not just a bottomless pit of ideas. So yes people in the 20th century became mega stars from 3 simple chords because basically they did it first, usually with a new type of instrument (the electric guitar in the 50-70s / Synthesizers in the 80-90s). Pop / rock music has never really been just about talent though, it's been equally about an image and marketing. The cultural revolution meant that things like punk could break through. But now the whole of the West has shifted left and counter culture is the mainstream it's difficult to be anti-establishment and create any kind of music movement.

I would say the music industry is now fractured into a million pieces, I have some songs on Spotify I wrote entirely on my own on my PC, everyone can make an album now and put it out. It's only those with the marketing that make it big unless they get a grass roots local following in an underground way.

If I have missed the point of your post sorry, I did my best to understand the answers you were after.

 

[danlightbulb]

As to your main question, yes usually in isolation one amazing instrument doesn't sound as good as 3 average ones because of the audio spectrum. Playing something simple on piano with two hands often sounds more impressive than something complex with one because you are filling in more of the audio spectrum. The interplay of the bass notes with the lead notes etc.

Yes I understand. The reason I chose piano as the instrument I wanted to learn was because of the wide range that can be played when playing solo, making the songs sound far fuller and more complete as standalone pieces. As I learn guitar now, I am finding it difficult to get the same depth to what I play. I think I will have to quickly try and progress to fingerpicking/folk style guitar which will enable more standalone music to be played. But even then, I am faced with the question of what to do with the skills I learn.

So yes people in the 20th century became mega stars from 3 simple chords because basically they did it first, usually with a new type of instrument (the electric guitar in the 50-70s / Synthesizers in the 80-90s).

Makes sense. So what is the way forward now in the modern era? I'll never be a professional, nor do I have the right personality to be an entertainer anyway, so is there any point in developing musical skills?

Pop / rock music has never really been just about talent though, it's been equally about an image and marketing.

Yeah and this seems to be getting more and more common these days. Its all branding and showmanship. At least musicians thirty years ago could play an instrument, most of them, but the mainstream music now is all completely manufactured. Your point about certain types of music being linked to social or political change is also highly relevant and something we hardly see nowadays.

If I have missed the point of your post sorry, I did my best to understand the answers you were after.

Not at all, you hit the nail right on the head. I was struggling to articulate how I was feeling about the topic.

Its difficult to know what to do next. Before lockdown I had started attending a piano recital group which was good and the first time I'd ever played in front of people. Who knows when that will start up again. I don't have anyone who plays an instrument in my circle of friends so there is no obvious way into more group play.

 

[MookJong]

Its difficult to know what to do next. Before lockdown I had started attending a piano recital group which was good and the first time I'd ever played in front of people. Who knows when that will start up again. I don't have anyone who plays an instrument in my circle of friends so there is no obvious way into more group play.

Get yourself setup with a DAW and an audio interface, you can easily be a one man band. In digital audio you can let your recordings be as live sounding or perfect as you like. There are so many resources for drums to be programmed for you etc. Also it's possible to hookup with people online and collaborate sending audio to eachother to build tracks. Everyone has been liberated to create music but at the same time we are probably also on our own more than ever. The solo artist is the future it seems.

More generally as far as sound i'd say we are stuck for the moment, just recycling old ideas with the mainstream preying on those who are not old enough to remember the 80s and 90s. Either Globalisation needs to falter or someone needs to create some new (or misuse existing) instruments before we get any new sound.

However the main problem with the internet and Globalisation is that it is almost impossible to grow anything grass roots now. The mainstream machine simply absorbs and waters down anything successful before it can become a functioning subculture.

This might sound odd but I fully expect some kind of conservative / anti globalisation music subculture to appear within the next few years. This is really the only edgy area that is actually against the mainstream now.

 

[danlightbulb]

Get yourself setup with a DAW and an audio interface, you can easily be a one man band. In digital audio you can let your recordings be as live sounding or perfect as you like. There are so many resources for drums to be programmed for you etc. Also it's possible to hookup with people online and collaborate sending audio to eachother to build tracks. Everyone has been liberated to create music but at the same time we are probably also on our own more than ever. The solo artist is the future it seems.

Its an interesting dilemma. Without the subculture driving force behind it, does all music become purposeless? Many historical genres of music were more about a group of people belonging to something and the musical style was just an outward facing identity that developed over time, like having a certain type of tattoo or wearing a certain style of clothing.

Hypothetical exploration - if someone could play an instrument technically very well, but did not have their own style in any way shape or form and did not belong to any existing sub cultural stereotype, then what would they do? For example imagine if an alien came to earth and was brilliant on a guitar, but had no affiliation with any historical sub culture, but wanted to get involved in 'something' - what would it do?

However the main problem with the internet and Globalisation is that it is almost impossible to grow anything grass roots now. The mainstream machine simply absorbs and waters down anything successful before it can become a functioning subculture.

Makes sense and there are numerous examples of how the mainstream machine latches on to anything new and milks it for all its worth in as short a space of time as possible. Its all about money, extract as much as possible before casting it aside.

But, maybe it was always this way? I've used the example of Rage Against the Machine before. Their songs are anti-establishment, anti-America - yet they made they fortune off the back of that. Did the band really believe in what their songs were about or were they just milking a certain type of sub-culture? Was the sub-culture driven by the band, or was the band born out of the sub-culture? What about bands who came after Rage, were they just jumping on the bandwagon?

What about jazz or blues - what do their respective sub-cultures care about? Some sub-cultures (like Rage's, or rap) are very strongly identified, whilst others, like jazz, are not really about anything at all. Is that more musically pure?

What about big groups like U2, Pink Floyd, Dire Straits. Do they really stand for anything or are they just career musicians taking an opportunity to make money?

 

[Haggisman]

Playing music is easy*, writing something original that people actually want to listen? That's the hard part!

I disagree that there are no "iconic" bands either - however they tend to only be "iconic" within their genre/community.

Because of how "pop" music has evolved into blandness to cater to "everyone", anyone creative who steps outside of that mould tends to be marginalised.


* relatively speaking - enough practice and I'm pretty sure anyone could pick up a guitar and a tab book and play even the most complicated of tracks

 

[danlightbulb]

Playing music is easy*, writing something original that people actually want to listen? That's the hard part

Is it even about the music at all? Or is it more about the entertainment value/personality of the outward facing brand? If the dullest person in the universe wrote the most amazing piece of music ever created, would it be successful?

 

[Rroff]

Playing music is easy*, writing something original that people actually want to listen? That's the hard part!

I disagree that there are no "iconic" bands either - however they tend to only be "iconic" within their genre/community.

Because of how "pop" music has evolved into blandness to cater to "everyone", anyone creative who steps outside of that mould tends to be marginalised.


* relatively speaking - enough practice and I'm pretty sure anyone could pick up a guitar and a tab book and play even the most complicated of tracks

I find there is often a difference between someone playing music who really understands it and has a passion for it and someone who has become competent through hours and hours of practise even when they've perfected a piece - the little nuances to the performance can, though not always, make a difference.

 

[Haggisman]

Is it even about the music at all? Or is it more about the entertainment value/personality of the outward facing brand? If the dullest person in the universe wrote the most amazing piece of music ever created, would it be successful?

I've listened to plenty of artists on Spotify who I think are fantastic, but I have no idea what the person/band even looks like, never mind their personality! That might affect whether I'd want to see a live performance or not, but not whether I like their music.

 

[builder22]

Is the difference between the Dire Straits songs u mention not just live vs studio versions?

 

[danlightbulb]

Is the difference between the Dire Straits songs u mention not just live vs studio versions?

Perhaps it was, and if so, this goes to show a degree of fakeness to a lot of the music we listen to. If a track created by a band cannot truly be played live (without changing things) then its not really real - its been manipulated offline. So then for a new musician, such as myself, trying to emulate that without really knowing what offline manipulations have been done - well it may cause chasing something that is impossible to achieve leading to disappointment?

 

[Yaayuh!]

@danlightbulb
Now would be a great time to subscribe and watch Rick Beato on Youtube. Especially his "What makes this song great" videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/pegzch

If the dullest person in the universe wrote the most amazing piece of music ever created, would it be successful?

The main problem with that question is that music, like all art, is subjective. So where you ask for "the most amazing piece of music", for whom exactly?

For me, I find the music industry is incredibly diluted but you can find talented artists, musicians and producers out there but you will have to look for them.
As for pop today it is what it is, there's little to say as it's generally just manufactured for the masses who just like that one recipe tweaked over and over again. It'll always outsell everything else as it's there to make money at the end of the day.

 

[builder22]

Perhaps it was, and if so, this goes to show a degree of fakeness to a lot of the music we listen to. If a track created by a band cannot truly be played live (without changing things) then its not really real - its been manipulated offline. So then for a new musician, such as myself, trying to emulate that without really knowing what offline manipulations have been done - well it may cause chasing something that is impossible to achieve leading to disappointment?

wouldn’t say it’s fake....it’s no secret that album/studio versions will be mixed/mastered/tracks overlayed/cut and spliced etc

I think you’re expecting too much/underestimating how difficult music can be...

I used to think Iwas as good as xyz musician if I could play their music....wrong!

 

[SixTwoSix]

If the dullest person in the universe wrote the most amazing piece of music ever created, would it be successful?

I'd say Thom Yorke fits this, fairly dull but has made some stunning music which was also commercially successful.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Is making good music fundamentally not about a single perfect skill on its own but about mutiple players of only adequate skill coming together?

This year I celebrate 50 years of actually playing in bands and performing gigs all over Europe.
Somebody tried to insult me about 3 decades ago by saying "The trouble with Dave is he surrounds himself with good musicians to make him sound better" - too right I do, why should I play with below par musicians?
Over the years I've never failed an audition on either voice, guitar or keyboards but I always know my level and what I'm going to be auditioning for, complete waste of time if it was a Jazz band or Dream Theater however I could do the rhythm, bass or keyboards for Dire Straits (even the piano bit on the extended version of Sultans).
To cut to the chase, yes it definitely matters to get the right people playing with you.

Here is the best example of where you might be coming from I can give.
Two years ago my best mate asked if I would perform at his wedding in an acoustic trio with him and a drummer we used to play with, of course I accepted and we set about learning 15 'acoustic' songs for the wedding.
Nine weeks before the wedding his fiance walks in the rehearsal room with a bass saying she's learned 4 songs to play with us at the wedding and I thought it was a joke because she'd never played an instrument in her life.
I was gobsmacked, she played it very simple and put all the root notes in the correct place and because of this she learned all 15 songs for her wedding day.

So here is a video of 3 blokes, two of us are average but the lead guitarist has played in Hendrix, Blackmore, Stevie Ray Vaughan and Doors tribute bands so he is a bit special.
The woman had picked up a bass nine weeks before this gig and just for you a song I've performed too many times, Sultans Of Swing.

 

[danlightbulb]

@SexyGreyFox very good! I do love Dire Straits - it was all my Dad used to listen to when I was a kid.

What would you do if you were a good guitar player but had no-one to form a band with and had to play solo, only for yourself?

Does it become purely an exercise of getting as technically proficient as possible? Does it become just playing stuff you personally like? Does it become learning lots of songs chords or riffs on the off chance that one day you might get chance to use it? Or do you try and learn all instruments, play each part separately and then edit them together. But what's the point of that, if no-one is ever going to see it?

I think Im just seriously lacking direction.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

What would you do if you were a good guitar player but had no-one to form a band with and had to play solo, only for yourself?

I can't help you, I've never not been in a band since 1970 so I learn songs to play with others.
Even now during lockdown I practise with my own band and other musicians on software called Jamulus where we can all hear each other in real time.
Playing with other people can make you play better or take you out of your comfort zone.
For example I had never played a lead guitar solo to an audience for 42 years, it wasn't my thing but Jules on the right in this video (the groom in the Sultans video) made me play a dual solo with him so this was the first time I ever did it and that was it then, I wanted a solo all the time.
You may notice it is the same 3 people in the Sultans video but when we had a rock band -

and then this followed -

 

[Bassmansam]

I can't help you, I've never not been in a band since 1970 so I learn songs to play with others.
Even now during lockdown I practise with my own band and other musicians on software called Jamulus where we can all hear each other in real time.
Playing with other people can make you play better or take you out of your comfort zone.
For example I had never played a lead guitar solo to an audience for 42 years, it wasn't my thing but Jules on the right in this video (the groom in the Sultans video) made me play a dual solo with him so this was the first time I ever did it and that was it then, I wanted a solo all the time.
You may notice it is the same 3 people in the Sultans video but when we had a rock band -

enjoyed that trooper cover. Especially as i am learning it on guitar, i am about 3 months into learning so it is a tricky one for me. The opening riff and that iconic guitar harmony i have pretty much got down after many hours of practicing them. Still struggle a bit with that gallop rythm in the verse though, guess it will come with practice.


Back to the OP, i disagree there are no iconic bands any more. It's just that there not really in the mainstream. Im talking about bands like Maiden, Slipknot, Avenged Sevenfold, Nightwish and many others. All have large fan bases but aren't really in the mainstream.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

If you're talking about guitar bands then yes, they've gone off the boil the younger generation don't look up to guitar heroes in the way previous generations did its all about electronica and sampling these days. The Pet Shop Boys said that Rock is overrated, maybe they're right, but one things for sure nothing stands still.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

If you're talking about guitar bands then yes, they've gone off the boil the younger generation don't look up to guitar heroes in the way previous generations did its all about electronica and sampling these days. The Pet Shop Boys said that Rock is overrated, maybe they're right, but one things for sure nothing stands still.

Funnily enough one of the biggest up and coming rock bands GHOST recently did a cover of It's A Sin