DOES MUSICIANSHIP COUNT?

you're assumption is not entirely correct ... i play at HOME and I frequently sit session so .. i have to practice .. a lot. i kind of know what you're saying .. but if you think someone's playing isn't up to snuff ... let them know that. that's a valuable thing to know.

jeff

Music just has to move you - period! It's tricky. It's subjective! for me, when i was much younger, i used to love listening to "Shredder" guitar music. This stuff demands a high degree of instrumental, technical prowess, however, now my ears/soul tell me that much of it is very boring, though technically proficient, and very poor in sound quality. It doesn't move me in any way! On the other hand, Charlie Parker recordings are brutal by today's standards, yet listening to him sax out a blues never ceases to amaze me. Sound quality alone won't bring me back for a 2nd listen but neither will strict instrumental ability.

I listen to alot of the songs posted here out of curiosity. Kinda gives me a peek at what others are doing in their HOME studios. And i stress HOME cause I assume everyone producing music on this forum is .... well .... home and not in a professional enviroment.

I personally feel that you are equating a professional studio with a commercial one. This is a very wrong assumption to make, as many people have built a professional studio at their place of residence. I am one of them.

Anyway.... I just had to make a comment FTR.

Jamester....

I edited out my musicianship comments because it did not come out the way that I had intended it to.

Sorry..... I thought you were responding to my post and thought, "Uh oh, maybe I did not write that out too well." So, I just deleted the comment altogether.

I do agree with you though, that what a mixer does is just as much musicianship as well as one who plays their instrument.

If it helps..... I started out as a musician. MIxing did not come until later on.

Don't you think Good musicianship outweighs a less than perfect recording every time?

Well, I'd rather hear good musicians playing good music with less than stellar audio quality - more so than mediocre musicians playing mediocre music with excellent audio quality. And, I think a lot of what people think are "audio" problems are really musical problems - writing, arranging, and performance. So, I agree with you somewhat when it comes to the final product.

On the other hand, there are fine songwriters who can't really perform their own material very well. And there are good engineers who have great ears, know how it's supposed to sound, but realize they aren't going to "cut it" as session players. I guess it really depends on what you consider to be your "craft." And, personally, I consider writers, arrangers, conductors, and engineers to be musicians.

So, any players on my tracks I should fire? Well, ok, the sax player should be on probation, but the rest of the guys do pretty good! [sm=lol.gif]

The other thing is, some of us are COMPOSERS, not performers -- when I create a demo recording there is not a note of it that I play -- it is all typed in, one way or another. My practicing days were long ago, in music school, so I never (almost never anyway) practice at all -- but I'm still tuning my musicianship -- which is some combination of rhythm, taste, sense of drama, brains, invention, idea-generation-by-method, inspiration, melody, habit, harmony, etc, etc, but fingers on an instrument never comes into it.

We've gotten film placement and a publshing deal based on what we do at home in our studio. That makes it a professional studio, doesn't it? In the same sense that Chaz mentioned, it's not a commercial studio, though.

My take on musicianship, in the context of this forum, is that musicianship must serve the song. That is to say that if a particuar song is well-served by a single acoustic guitar strumming three 1st position chords, so be it. The musicianship is sufficient for the song.

This isn't the Phat Lix Forum or the Shredderz Hangout forum. Other forums seem to be more about one's ability to play an intrument than the composition and recording of songs. What I like about this forum is that it is more song oriented than a lot of others, and the songwriters are using equipment and software that I use, too, so we can exchange notes (pun?) on how we achieved the recordings of the songs we post.

Ken

If people took the time to learn their instruments, knew when they were out of tune or out of key their projects would and should sound better. I know you can get good results with cakewalk products as many of you prove day after day. but if you don't have good chops, a great recording is only going to expose that you can't play.

No arguments here. Actually, I find recording myself a great diagnostic tool for my practicing. I catch myself doing things on "tape" that I'm not otherwise conscious of doing.

So, to put a positive spin on this: not only do you get great production tools in Cakewalk products, but you get a fantastic practice aid. So, all you performing musicians out there (myself included) - get in that woodshed!

gugliel, this is optional for you and the other musicians who are composers only.

Actually, I find recording myself a great diagnostic tool for my practicing. I catch myself doing things on "tape" that I'm not otherwise conscious of doing.

That is what helped me to "hone" my guitar chops. When you hear yourself live it is one thing, but when you track a performance and play it back, you get to hear the actual reality of it.

So, in that regard, recording and hearing the playback has helped me become a much better musician. It has taught me to be more aware of what I am playing and how to listen to what I am playing at the same time.

(Edit: Typos)

Ideally. Yes, ideally. It really comes down to what you're looking for. I mean, Hillary Duff's record SOUNDS great. I'm sure they used excellent studio musicians, top notch gear, and very savvy engineers and producers. There's lots of musicianship and lots of production prowess. The playing and the production are excellent. Its very easy to listen to if you take for granted the ZERO content factor.

I think content may actually be what you're getting at? I mean, every lousy record put out by EMI for mass market appeal SOUNDS good. Its designed to be sonically pleasing, and they've hired both good performers and good producers to make it that way. When you start going back and listening to old crackly Robert Johnson recordings, or early Bob Dylan, you get the other end of the spectrum. It doesn't SOUND terribly good, but damn, the CONTENT is huge. The playing is good, the performances in general are excellent, but they sound terrible. Even on "John Wesley Harding," my favorite Dylan album, its obvious that the harmonica was recorded at the same time as the lead vocal, through the same mic at the same volume. And its bloody ear shattering. But I could listen to those tunes forever.

Musicianship of course counts. In theory, you're correct, the best way to get a great sounding track is to have a great performance. And a great performance I think will always outweigh a great SOUND in the long run, but when you start combining them and introducing amazing content, that's where the classic songs and albums come from, in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: nyhatco

Don't you think Good musicianship outweighs a less than perfect recording every time? Should'nt good musicians be the foundation for good music.

Unless, I am seeing a band play live, I could care less how good their musicianship is. If they make a great recording, I am not thinking "I wonder how many takes it took them to get it right". I don't care if they are playing a toaster and a blender, if I like the song and the recording, that's all I care about.

my 2 cents