How important is technical skill in evaluating a musician's greatness?

[Buzzkill]

So obviously, like everything relating to music it's all a matter of taste, but I was arguing with my friend about this yesterday. He was saying that James Murphy (LCD Soundsystem) is one of the greatest musicians ever because of his mastery of so many instruments as well as his amazing production skills.

I countered this by saying that Jeff Mangum was a pretty elementary guitarist and really didn't have much in the way of a great voice but is considered by a lot of people as one of the great musicians of the last few decades (no he didn't push the boundaries of music...but that's for another thread)

So in your opinion, do you need to consider the technical mastery of a musician to properly evaluate their worth?

I know this is a hugely subjective question, and there is obviously no right answer, just thought I'd hear all yalls take on it.

[El Vaquero de Infierno]

Chris Thile is my favourite musician. His technical proficiency is off the charts, but accompanying that is his ability to compose music that pushes the boundaries of acoustic music, creating music that is challenging but also accessible. He also sings, though that is his weakest attribute.

Yo-Yo Ma is considered a great musician, but he seems to only play music that has been composed by others, nor does he improvise, which Thile does.

I think it is to do with having the whole package that makes a musician "great": technical proficiency, ability to improvise (which comes from technical proficiency and imagination), and the ability to create music that achieves its purpose (either by writing a song that is accessible and is a "hit," or creating challenging music that pushes boundaries; and if you can make that more challenging music digestible to a wider audience, great.).

[The Destroyer]

Personally, not really.

I'm pretty ignorant about the technical aspects of music, so unless it's blindingly obvious that someone has a lot of skill (playing fast, complicated parts etc. a lot), all that sort of sort of thing just passes me by. I just know what I like the sound of and what I don't.

[DLVH84]

It depends on the player, because they all have different styles.

[FakeLaser]

No, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

Playing fast, complicated skill and the like is impressive, but there's more to being a musician, or an artist, than technical skill. Any music or art of value that is of the highest degree of quality should make some sort of statement. And that can be done without technical mastery. Look at early punk rock... not much technical skill there, but obviously a lot of great musicians who changed music while making "grand" statements about what music is.

Again, there are certain musicians who have that "total package" which I alluded to in your last thread, and those are the musicians who are in the upper echelon.

Having great technical skill makes it a lot easier to experiment. It makes it easier to express yourself. But it also can become constricting and the music only becomes about showing off technical prowess. It becomes empty. In these sorts of discussions, I've seen the name Yngie Malmsteen thrown around. Obviously, a great technical guitarist... but what else is there to his music besides "holy fuck he can play fast" and "holy shit at those chord progressions." Which, as I said... is impressive, but it kind of ends there.

Then you take a band like Suicide, who didn't even know how to play their instruments... and they made some of the most beautiful and thought provoking music of the last 30 years.

I'll bring up the artist Jean-Michele Basquait.









From a purely "technical" standpoint, at least in the traditional sense... he can't draw.



Or he chose not to.

But I'd say he is way more of an "artist" than some "realist" who just paints things that look exactly like a photograph, which may require more technical skill... but where's the creativity in that? What ideas or concepts are being expressed? Basquait's work is far more expressive and interesting than say... Norman Rockwell. Because it says something.

And hey, like he said... he can draw. So maybe he had technical mastery which made it easier for him to express the ideas and concepts that he wanted to. He had more tools at his disposal so it was easier for him to explore than someone who was less technically inclined.

[FakeLaser]

I would say that James Murphy is a great musician but I wouldn't attribute it solely to his alleged mastery of of so many instruments and his amazing production skills. It's a big part of his greatness, but it's not the only thing that makes him great. Murphy's greatness is more defined in his ability to incorporate elements of multiple genres into electronic music, making it more accessible to those who are averse to electronic music. He's great because his music is timely and seemingly "defines" an era, to a degree. Clearly, his technical mastery plays a role in this, and as I stated above, obviously made it "easier" for him, but now we're back to the whole "total package" deal I've been harping on all along.

I guess to draw a conclusion... a band or musician, or artist, does not need to have great technical skill to be great but it certainly makes it easier; and the upper echelon is going to have technical mastery, pretty much by definition.

[Kane Knight]

Mastering a lot of instruments is an impressive feat, but there's more to music than just mechanical skills.

Still, I don't really consider an artist great without some solid grasp of music itself. That's a little bit subjective, but if you just know how to play your instrument you're really just emulating. Musicianship is really important to me, way moreso than technical ability. I'd rather have someone who understands the song with four power chords than someone who can play scales at 2000000 beats per minute.

Of course, if you're both, even better. Brian May will always be one of my favourite guitarists for that reason. He isn't the best shredder in the world, and there are better composers, but he has both technical skill and understanding.

[jerichoholicninja]

Not at all. I'd rather listen to Half Japanesse than an Eddie Van Halen guitar solo.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by jerichoholicninja Not at all. I'd rather listen to Half Japanesse than an Eddie Van Halen guitar solo.

Know fuck all about half japanese, but EVH's music is just fucking soulless.

[FakeLaser]

I'll second that.

[Buzzkill]

Originally Posted by FakeLaser I would say that James Murphy is a great musician but I wouldn't attribute it solely to his alleged mastery of of so many instruments and his amazing production skills. It's a big part of his greatness, but it's not the only thing that makes him great. Murphy's greatness is more defined in his ability to incorporate elements of multiple genres into electronic music, making it more accessible to those who are averse to electronic music. He's great because his music is timely and seemingly "defines" an era, to a degree. Clearly, his technical mastery plays a role in this, and as I stated above, obviously made it "easier" for him, but now we're back to the whole "total package" deal I've been harping on all along. I guess to draw a conclusion... a band or musician, or artist, does not need to have great technical skill to be great but it certainly makes it easier; and the upper echelon is going to have technical mastery, pretty much by definition.

BTW, I really l like James Murphy, and you listed a lot of my reasons for being a fan. I'd also say he's way better than Jeff Mangum (its apples and oranges really), but just wanted to play devil's advocate so not really the best example.

And yeah, I pretty much agree with this.

[Buzzkill]

Posting this just because