That’s a big reaction for a tongue-in-cheek comment on an unpopular opinion post! Joe, is that you? I’m sorry they used Steve in Crossroads instead of you, but you gotta let it go! Sometimes the student becomes the teacher!
Joking aside, the whole “soul” thing can be seen as somewhat of a compliment in a sense. Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection. The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups. As an off the top example, think of Merry Clayton’s voice cracking as she belted out a vocal masterwork in her pajamas and curlers after being dragged out of bed at midnight to back up Mick Jagger. It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played. It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different. Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like. That doesn’t mean that it has no merit, or that anyone who feels it deeply is in some way “defective”. These guys wouldn’t have had 40+ year careers if nobody was feeling what they were doing.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack. Remember: Barry Manilow has sold over 85 million albums, so there really is a market for everything!
Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection
Assumptions. All of them? You know that how?
The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups
That’s your opinion. I’ve heard that one a thousand times. I respect it even if I totally disagree.
I agree that an “imperfection” doesn’t ruin a song, necessarily. Yes, sometimes it makes it even more special. But that doesn’t mean ANY imperfection will improve ANY song and certainly doesn’t mean the lack of “imperfections” will make one sterile. An orchestra playing Mozart or Stravinsky is as “perfect” as it gets. But one wouldn’t call it soulless. Some actually feel that way but they wouldn’t admit it for fear of being seen as unsophisticated. I’d respect them a bit more if they actually owned it.
It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.
I don’t mean to antagonize you, but I’ve heard this argument a thousand times and it bothers me because it shows how you assume stuff like Satriani is by definition mechanic and that is somehow obvious for everybody. You arbitrarily define what you consider an universal truth, stopping any kind of argument. It passes off as arrogance from somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about (how other people perceive the music from technical players).
All the virtuosos you mention have those so-called “imperfections”. A song like Satriani’s Starry Night in the studio version is simply magic that cannot ever be reproduced. Other songs, like Flying in a Blue Dream are totally different beasts in the album and live. Some are actually played differently. Steve Vai’s Whispering a Prayer is something so beautiful live I don’t think he ever bothered to try to reproduce it in an album.
What you call imperfections are not imperfections. They’re perfect. But perfection is something very subjective in music. I liked the way you described Merry Clayton’s performance. But it was not imperfection. Clearly you saw that perfection much clearer than me. When I hear Satriani I hear that perfection. It’s not the perfection of his technical precision. Other styles, like some types of electronic music, also have that perfection in its own way. I fail to see it because it doesn’t touch me. But it’s my “failing” not the music. It feels mechanic to me because I fail to see what’s under the surface due to my own limitations. But those limitations can be stretched or even beaten on all styles.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played.
More assumptions. You know this how?
It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different.
If your previous assumption is correct, I would disagree. They would definitely be less impressive because it would not be about the music. But I don’t think your assumption is correct.
Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like
And it’s not my place to tell them their taste and perception is wrong. If they feel it’s machine-like it’s because it feels like that to them. I totally get it. And most people stop there, but other people can’t accept it’s just their perception and attack the music itself and its fans for “liking machine-like music” and “they themselves prefer something with soul”. Can’t you see how that kind of statement puts other people’s tastes down while elevating their own?
How would you feel if a Satriani fan asked what music you like and, after hearing your response, they’d smile condescendingly and say “well, that music has its merits…sure…but it’s too simple. I myself prefer music with more complexity and instead of basic jingles”. We could agree he would sound like a stuck-up pompous ass, right? That’s how people with the “soul” argument come off, intentionally or not.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack.
I hear you. But I should point out that me disagreeing with you and trying to make my point concisely also came off to you as a personal attack (which it wasn’t). So, something to consider.
That’s a big reaction for a tongue-in-cheek comment on an unpopular opinion post! Joe, is that you? I’m sorry they used Steve in Crossroads instead of you, but you gotta let it go! Sometimes the student becomes the teacher!
Joking aside, the whole “soul” thing can be seen as somewhat of a compliment in a sense. Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection. The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups. As an off the top example, think of Merry Clayton’s voice cracking as she belted out a vocal masterwork in her pajamas and curlers after being dragged out of bed at midnight to back up Mick Jagger. It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played. It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different. Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like. That doesn’t mean that it has no merit, or that anyone who feels it deeply is in some way “defective”. These guys wouldn’t have had 40+ year careers if nobody was feeling what they were doing.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack. Remember: Barry Manilow has sold over 85 million albums, so there really is a market for everything!
Assumptions. All of them? You know that how?
That’s your opinion. I’ve heard that one a thousand times. I respect it even if I totally disagree.
I agree that an “imperfection” doesn’t ruin a song, necessarily. Yes, sometimes it makes it even more special. But that doesn’t mean ANY imperfection will improve ANY song and certainly doesn’t mean the lack of “imperfections” will make one sterile. An orchestra playing Mozart or Stravinsky is as “perfect” as it gets. But one wouldn’t call it soulless. Some actually feel that way but they wouldn’t admit it for fear of being seen as unsophisticated. I’d respect them a bit more if they actually owned it.
I don’t mean to antagonize you, but I’ve heard this argument a thousand times and it bothers me because it shows how you assume stuff like Satriani is by definition mechanic and that is somehow obvious for everybody. You arbitrarily define what you consider an universal truth, stopping any kind of argument. It passes off as arrogance from somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about (how other people perceive the music from technical players).
All the virtuosos you mention have those so-called “imperfections”. A song like Satriani’s Starry Night in the studio version is simply magic that cannot ever be reproduced. Other songs, like Flying in a Blue Dream are totally different beasts in the album and live. Some are actually played differently. Steve Vai’s Whispering a Prayer is something so beautiful live I don’t think he ever bothered to try to reproduce it in an album.
What you call imperfections are not imperfections. They’re perfect. But perfection is something very subjective in music. I liked the way you described Merry Clayton’s performance. But it was not imperfection. Clearly you saw that perfection much clearer than me. When I hear Satriani I hear that perfection. It’s not the perfection of his technical precision. Other styles, like some types of electronic music, also have that perfection in its own way. I fail to see it because it doesn’t touch me. But it’s my “failing” not the music. It feels mechanic to me because I fail to see what’s under the surface due to my own limitations. But those limitations can be stretched or even beaten on all styles.
More assumptions. You know this how?
If your previous assumption is correct, I would disagree. They would definitely be less impressive because it would not be about the music. But I don’t think your assumption is correct.
And it’s not my place to tell them their taste and perception is wrong. If they feel it’s machine-like it’s because it feels like that to them. I totally get it. And most people stop there, but other people can’t accept it’s just their perception and attack the music itself and its fans for “liking machine-like music” and “they themselves prefer something with soul”. Can’t you see how that kind of statement puts other people’s tastes down while elevating their own?
How would you feel if a Satriani fan asked what music you like and, after hearing your response, they’d smile condescendingly and say “well, that music has its merits…sure…but it’s too simple. I myself prefer music with more complexity and instead of basic jingles”. We could agree he would sound like a stuck-up pompous ass, right? That’s how people with the “soul” argument come off, intentionally or not.
I hear you. But I should point out that me disagreeing with you and trying to make my point concisely also came off to you as a personal attack (which it wasn’t). So, something to consider.