He's an idiot. And you're right, that's a big reason that he's not very good.
Don't listen to him.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
He's an idiot. And you're right, that's a big reason that he's not very good.
Don't listen to him.
J
jhan
Guest
Totally agree, but that's one of the reasons I don't listen to music I don't like. If I think something sucks hard (Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, etc.) I turn off the radio so it doesn't influence me subconsciously.
But not listening to music completely is just stupid.
But not listening to music completely is just stupid.
Don't be too hard on him. I mean, it worked for Entwistle.
In all seriousness, though, you can't be a musician without having a love for music, and a love for listening to music. Even music you don't like can have a positive effect on your creative process - as much as rap artists annoy me with their very existence, I'd be lying if I didn't learn a thing or two about simplicity in groove from hearing a few gangsta tracks. Everything could and should be used as a learning experience. I've been influenced, either in large or small ways, by Paco de Lucia, Art Tatum, Maynard James Keenan, John Cage, Paul Motian, Jimi Hendrix, Dimebag Darrel, Frank Zappa, Danny Carey, Adam Jones, Terry Bozzio, the music faculty professors at my former community college (including an alto saxophonist, a percussionist/composer, and a guy who plays Theremin,) among hundreds of other people or bands I've heard over the years. What we are is a culmination of all our experiences, and our music is likewise a culmination of everything we've heard, regardless of instrument, genre, era, or medium, which is focused and manipulated into a work of creative self-expression that we can call our own.
The point of listening to music isn't to steal ideas or to copy someone else's style - in fact, every time I come up with an idea that I feel I've heard before verbatim, I trash it - it's about experiencing the beauty of music, and in experiencing it, learn new ways to express your own creative energy. If someone is really paranoid about their style ending up like someone else's, they are merely exhibiting signs of creative bankruptcy, and they should go into advertising instead.
In all seriousness, though, you can't be a musician without having a love for music, and a love for listening to music. Even music you don't like can have a positive effect on your creative process - as much as rap artists annoy me with their very existence, I'd be lying if I didn't learn a thing or two about simplicity in groove from hearing a few gangsta tracks. Everything could and should be used as a learning experience. I've been influenced, either in large or small ways, by Paco de Lucia, Art Tatum, Maynard James Keenan, John Cage, Paul Motian, Jimi Hendrix, Dimebag Darrel, Frank Zappa, Danny Carey, Adam Jones, Terry Bozzio, the music faculty professors at my former community college (including an alto saxophonist, a percussionist/composer, and a guy who plays Theremin,) among hundreds of other people or bands I've heard over the years. What we are is a culmination of all our experiences, and our music is likewise a culmination of everything we've heard, regardless of instrument, genre, era, or medium, which is focused and manipulated into a work of creative self-expression that we can call our own.
The point of listening to music isn't to steal ideas or to copy someone else's style - in fact, every time I come up with an idea that I feel I've heard before verbatim, I trash it - it's about experiencing the beauty of music, and in experiencing it, learn new ways to express your own creative energy. If someone is really paranoid about their style ending up like someone else's, they are merely exhibiting signs of creative bankruptcy, and they should go into advertising instead.
Listening to other bass players is half the fun. The other half is trying to play what you hear.
I can't agree.....not listening to other player's is just ignorant in my opinion. I have often heard and tend to agree that imitation leads to inspiration leads to innovation. Just don't get stuck in the first two.
I 'get it' - but it's definitely a misguided concept. I've have friends say the same thing and the way I interpret it is that they don't want to be inadvertently or obviously using other peoples licks and riffs in their own works.
Who does? Everyone wants their licks and riffs not to be blatant copies of other people's work - but you don't do that by NOT listening to other people's work - you do that by being aware of music and trying to express yourself in your own voice. There's not a single artist out there who has put out a 100% "pure" piece of art that doesn't have some elements of the art that's gone before.
This mentality is more of a cop out and admission of weakness, IMO. Being afraid that hearing other people's music is going to take over your ability to be original is wrong-headed. If you're so concerned that simply hearing other people's music is going to erase your ability to compose your own, you are not a very good composer.
You run just as much risk of accidentally ripping off a melody or riff by remaining musically celibate as you do studying any and all music. There are only so many notes - and modern music has a scope that is pretty limited in the grand scheme of things. The likelihood that you're "100% purely personally inspired" music will not remind someone of some other "100% purely personally inspired" music is very low.
Who does? Everyone wants their licks and riffs not to be blatant copies of other people's work - but you don't do that by NOT listening to other people's work - you do that by being aware of music and trying to express yourself in your own voice. There's not a single artist out there who has put out a 100% "pure" piece of art that doesn't have some elements of the art that's gone before.
This mentality is more of a cop out and admission of weakness, IMO. Being afraid that hearing other people's music is going to take over your ability to be original is wrong-headed. If you're so concerned that simply hearing other people's music is going to erase your ability to compose your own, you are not a very good composer.
You run just as much risk of accidentally ripping off a melody or riff by remaining musically celibate as you do studying any and all music. There are only so many notes - and modern music has a scope that is pretty limited in the grand scheme of things. The likelihood that you're "100% purely personally inspired" music will not remind someone of some other "100% purely personally inspired" music is very low.
J
jhan
Guest
J
jhan
Guest
My view on this is, if you don't listen to music, how are you going to make music? Unless you're some kind of savant, how is music going to come out if it doesn't go in?
Apart from the original subject of my post, what's even worse is musicians who ONLY listen to one genre, or 1 or 2 bands. A lot of us have played with guitards who only listen to guitard music, are ok at shredding, and can't hold a simple groove. (Paul Gilbert's rhythm lesson on YouTube - hint hint.) In the metal scene, this is rampant, IME. Seems like for a while, EVERY original song by a young metaller I've listened to sounded like Children of Bodom or Lamb of God. This is almost as bad as not listening to music at all. Don't even get me started on the Dream Theater copies.
Apart from the original subject of my post, what's even worse is musicians who ONLY listen to one genre, or 1 or 2 bands. A lot of us have played with guitards who only listen to guitard music, are ok at shredding, and can't hold a simple groove. (Paul Gilbert's rhythm lesson on YouTube - hint hint.) In the metal scene, this is rampant, IME. Seems like for a while, EVERY original song by a young metaller I've listened to sounded like Children of Bodom or Lamb of God. This is almost as bad as not listening to music at all. Don't even get me started on the Dream Theater copies.
Now I can understand people purposefully staying away from the radio or getting too absorbed in CD's or other people's music when they're in a particular phase of writing. But to state that you don't want to listen to other music at all in an effort to remain 'pure' is simply silly.
It's easy to see if someone feels that they're compositions have been favoring too much of their influences and not enough of their own voice that they'd want to sequester themselves and do the monk musician thing.
It's easy to see if someone feels that they're compositions have been favoring too much of their influences and not enough of their own voice that they'd want to sequester themselves and do the monk musician thing.
There is a small truth to this statement. For example: When composing original heavy music you don't want that Lady Gaga Melody to cloud your thoughts. Or you don't want your obvious obsession with Metallica to take over your music.
But ear training and music appreciation are core elements for any superior player. So a blanket statement is not a good choice of words. And like you said his playing speaks louder then words can.
But ear training and music appreciation are core elements for any superior player. So a blanket statement is not a good choice of words. And like you said his playing speaks louder then words can.
scottbass
Bass lines like a big, funky giant
I don't listen to other people talk.
I don't want what they're saying to influence the voices in my head!
I don't want what they're saying to influence the voices in my head!
I think it even happens in sports. As a kid grows up he's constantly emulating the players he most admires and over times incorporates elements of that player's style into his own style. Then when he reaches the pinnacle of whatever sport he plays other kids will emulate him, and so on. Would there be a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar without a Wilt Chamberlain? A Jack Nicklaus without a Bobby Jones, or a Tiger Woods without a Jack Nicklaus? A Sidney Crosby without a Wayne Gretzky? A Roger Federer without a Pete Sampras?
It even happens in the sciences. Copernicus led to Galileo, Newton lead to Einstein. Hubble led to Stephen Hawking. It's all about inspiration, what inspires you to succeed.
It even happens in the sciences. Copernicus led to Galileo, Newton lead to Einstein. Hubble led to Stephen Hawking. It's all about inspiration, what inspires you to succeed.
I try not to bag on the creative process of other musicians, but I never did get this idea. There are plenty of bands/genres that I love listening to and have zero interest in playing or writing, listening to those sounds doesn't influence me. Whatever works for anyone personally, doesn't break arm or pick my pocket, but for me creation is an intentional process with a direction and an end goal. There are surprises along the way and I try to embrace those, but the influences/genre don't happen by accident or osmosis because I've heard too much of any particular sound. Then again, I've never been in a band that plays in a stream of consciousness style, so maybe there's a different mindset contributing to that idea that I just don't have.
I hear you - and I wanted to expand on this idea and expose my snobbery.
I, and many of my peers, started studying music in our childhood and throughout our formative years were taught a huge variety of styles, how to read, compose and perform by studying other artists openly and unashamedly.
As an older musician I found that peer group to be quite small and most of the people I ran into who were 'musicians' were self-taught and relatively musically illiterate. Yes, they could wail on guitar, but anyone who teaches themselves one very specific and narrow thing can become quite impressive doing that one very specific thing.
What I learned was that communicating in terms of music - musical reference points, musical terminology, the language of music - was all but out the window and I had to learn communicate in 'street music' terms in order to communicate with my new, 'street musician' peers.
I NEVER heard one of my musically trained peers say anything like, "I don't want to be influenced". I've heard my non-trained peers say that sort of thing at one point in or another almost without fail.
What I've concluded is that if you are educated and have a strong musical foundation, the idea that outside influence can 'corrupt' your process is silly. But if you don't have a solid and broad musical foundation or somehow believe that 'your music' is something 'you alone' developed and created, it's quite easy to see how outside influence can steer your process out of your own control.
Those saying such things will more than likely have to admit that they couldn't do what they do today - the could not have developed "their sound" without following the influences that inspired them to become musicians. The idea that they want to shun outside influence now that they've "got their sound" is almost insulting.
"Thanks for letting me steal from you for so long! Now I'm going to continue to steal from you but no longer give you credit and I'll justify that by the fact that I've simply decided to stop listening to you."
J
jhan
Guest
+1000.
BTW - the willingness to make a value judgment doesn't mean you're a snob. It means you're not afraid to think.
BTW - the willingness to make a value judgment doesn't mean you're a snob. It means you're not afraid to think.
J
jhan
Guest
I've made the decision: the next time I find myself working with a musician who says that he/she doesn't listen to too much music because they don't want to be influenced, I'm immediately bailing out. Right there and then. I'll make some kind of polite excuse, pack my stuff up, and be history.
In fact, if they don't say anything but it's obvious that they don't really listen to music, I'm still bailing.
In fact, if they don't say anything but it's obvious that they don't really listen to music, I'm still bailing.
Well - I feel I have to add that some of the most rewarding musical experiences I've had have been with those very musicians! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Just because they think that way doesn't mean they don't write or make really great music! It's just a philosophical difference and like all philosophical differences, level of education and experience will always yield different points of view.
While I find that mindset to be ludicrous, it doesn't automatically mean the person with that mindset is not worth working with.
Ha! I guess that means that just because I have a strong opinion, my 'snobbery' doesn't result in my snubbing my fellow musicians, street or otherwise!
It would seem to me that a true 'arteest' wouldn't allow outside influences to 'get in the way of their vision' no matter how much music they listen to.
In my former originals band, Chris Plays Guitar, I was free to invent my own bass lines for the songs and express my creativity. one night, while playing one song, I realized "oh crap, that was a Geddy styled lick". A few seconds later, "oh, there's a Mike Rutherford one".
Did I get pissed off at myself for filching other bass bits from two of my many bass heroes????
Heck No!!!!!
It made me smile. (A) The little borrowed bits of bass sonicry fit perfectly in the song. (B) The bits were not blatant copies of their bits, and (C) I was quite happy that I could pull them off at all... Especially the Geddy bit.
Did I get pissed off at myself for filching other bass bits from two of my many bass heroes????
Heck No!!!!!
It made me smile. (A) The little borrowed bits of bass sonicry fit perfectly in the song. (B) The bits were not blatant copies of their bits, and (C) I was quite happy that I could pull them off at all... Especially the Geddy bit.
