• 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.

Gene Simmons is Good

#243
MysticMichael said:
Fair enough. No harm done... ;)



I see your point. I would suggest only that since playing well in an ensemble environment is an essential skill for any musician (and composition is at least a highly-desirable skill), that perhaps those in the first category are not as talented (certainly not as well rounded) as one might otherwise think; while those in the second category are perhaps under-rated. Ya think? :hmm:

MM
Click to expand...


That's a unique perspective. Maybe we have defined talent not necessarily as having the most thorough knowledge and understanding of music theory, but rather being able to maximize strengths, regardless of weaknesses?
 
#244
fourstringburn said:
I'm not writing off any bands, I'm just pointing out a fact. When recording artists, mostly rock bands (or most any band for that matter) say they "write songs" the word "write" is merely a metaphor.

Other than writing lyrics down on paper, is any of the music by most bands written in notation, chord charts, or even tablature? have any of the bands you played in written your songs down on paper? None of the rock bands I played in have! mainly because most of the "musicians" I played with can't read note either.

Most songs by bands start with a riff or a lyric, (that someone jammed on) then builds from there. sound like a familiar formula?

Sure there are more complex bands like Yes, Rush, King Crimson and others that orchestrate many different and interesting parts in their songs. But are there bands 'WRITING "songs like that today?


None the less, I still stand behind what I say about be able to read music's written language. playing an instrument is only one part of music. I'm sure the great jazz bassists, studio bassists, and the other fine bass players playing on the bandstand would agree.

Sorry if many of you take offense to it, I'm telling like it is, but your negative replies are nothing more than semantics in lieu of your unwillingness to learn to read "musics written language"
Click to expand...

1)Yeah I won't disagree with you there, a lot bands out there write their songs through jamming.(Instead of getting it down in their heads on paper). To the question of bands that write their material similar like Yes, King Crimson, and Rush(prog period) like that today? Tons actually, quite a lot in the progressive metal and progressive rock scenes if you take a deeper look in the scene's modern bands.

Also, I can read bass cleft, and I'm the process of learning of treble cleft. Don't assume that I can't read music because of my "negative comment."
 
#245
MysticMichael said:
Uh, THAT was a note? :confused: :ninja:

MM
Click to expand...

Dude, :eyebrow: IT'S NOT A ******* BASS SOLO!!! And Gene has never claimed it to be, it's a blood spitting act for entertainment, he has to do something with his bass, he isn't just gonna stand in the middle of Cobo Arena and vomit blood with no sound effects, how awkward. Anyway, when you said that Gene Simmons can do none of the above, I srongly disagree, and no, that isn't the best redeeming quality, I get tired of the "ROCK" bass player thing too, it's not substantial enough to make closed minded morons stop bashing a man who's done nothing to you personally to warrant it.:confused:

Goin Blind (The one I'll always use)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ-wWKRUYuY

An unexpected example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYi8RmIi8ZQ


And Black Diamond which Gene wrote the main riff for on guitar AND bass, because, yes ladies and gentlemen, Gene Simmons CAN play guitar and bass!!:rolleyes:


There are a ton more, but it gets redundant to post these after a while.;)


But you know what they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"
 
#246
bassybill said:
That's almost like saying that to communicate in English, you need to be able capitalise and punctuate correctly. :D
Click to expand...

Almost like? When you learn to speak, you also learned to read and write the language along with the proper grammar usage didn't you? Punctuation and capitalization came into play when writing it. :hmm:

A lot of musicians view music as a language also. So therefore, one should be able to read, write, and "speak" the language.

So for those who can't read music's written language, being labeled a "player" shouldn't be offensive because your in very good company with thousands of great players. But the term "musician" should be regarded for those who are well versed and studied in all aspects of music.
 
#247
JukeBoxHero said:
1)Yeah I won't disagree with you there, a lot bands out there write their songs through jamming.(Instead of getting it down in their heads on paper). To the question of bands that write their material similar like Yes, King Crimson, and Rush(prog period) like that today? Tons actually, quite a lot in the progressive metal and progressive rock scenes if you take a deeper look in the scene's modern bands.

Also, I can read bass cleft, and I'm the process of learning of treble cleft. Don't assume that I can't read music because of my "negative comment."
Click to expand...

Your comment isn't negative at all. Reading music is a on going challenge, don't be afraid to keep challenging yourself.

I don't listen to many newer bands these days so I wasn't aware of some of these progressive metal bands, that's just a function of my age. (you know,they just don't play like they used to anymore!) Maybe you should tell me some bands like these I should checkout?
 
#248
From Websters Dictionary:

Main Entry: mu·si·cian
Pronunciation: \myü-ˈzi-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : instrumentalist

— mu·si·cian·ly \-lē\ adjective

— mu·si·cian·ship \-ˌship\ noun


We will let you have your definition.Please respect ours.Thank you,drive thru please.............
 
#249
Scarrett1031 said:
That's a unique perspective. Maybe we have defined talent not necessarily as having the most thorough knowledge and understanding of music theory, but rather being able to maximize strengths, regardless of weaknesses?
Click to expand...

I would define musical talent as having the innate ability to appreciate, to comprehend, and to compose and/or perform music that is of a high technical and/or aesthetic standard (particularly aesthetic, which is by nature subjective. This isn't mathematics, after all. It's art).

While talent typically facilitates the acquisition and development of a "thorough knowledge and understand of music theory", this competence in theory by itself is inadequate to fully qualify as "talent", IMHO, since raw knowledge can be acquired through sheer determination and hard work - despite relative lack of talent. But even someone who understands theory front and back doesn't necessarily know what to actually do with it (i.e. creative vision and purpose). That's where the innate, intuitive sense of what to express and how to express it comes in. This is what most people probably mean when they use the term "talent".

Paul McCartney is perhaps an ideal example. His technical understanding of music is very limited. He can't read a note. But he's self-taught to a high degree of accomplishment on multiple instruments, can sing almost anything, and has composed an amazing catalogue (qualitatively and quantitatively) of compositions through a career of several decades. IMHO, he is within his chosen genre(s) a far more talented musician than anyone who has all the theory knowledge and reading/arranging chops - but can't do any of what McCartney can do.

My, this has all become far too cerebral a discussion for a Gene Simmons thread. I apologize.

Sex, drugs, and rock & roll!!! :bassist:

MM
 
#250
MysticMichael said:
I would define musical talent as having the innate ability to appreciate, to comprehend, and to compose and/or perform music that is of a high technical and/or aesthetic standard (particularly aesthetic, which is by nature subjective. This isn't mathematics, after all. It's art).

While talent typically facilitates the acquisition and development of a "thorough knowledge and understand of music theory", this competence in theory by itself is inadequate to fully qualify as "talent", IMHO, since raw knowledge can be acquired through sheer determination and hard work - despite relative lack of talent. But even someone who understands theory front and back doesn't necessarily know what to actually do with it (i.e. creative vision and purpose). That's where the innate, intuitive sense of what to express and how to express it comes in. This is what most people probably mean when they use the term "talent".

Paul McCartney is perhaps an ideal example. His technical understanding of music is very limited. He can't read a note. But he's self-taught to a high degree of accomplishment on multiple instruments, can sing almost anything, and has composed an amazing catalogue (qualitatively and quantitatively) of compositions through a career of several decades. IMHO, he is a far more accomplished musician than anyone who has all the theory knowledge and reading/arranging chops - but can't do any of that.

My, this has all become far too cerebral a discussion for a Gene Simmons thread. I apologize.

Sex, drugs, and rock & roll!!! :bassist:

MM
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. Paul McCartney is a well accomplished bass "player" "song writer", and "performer" who is one of a few walking legends. But let's put the term "musician" into perspective as I already explained it. Sorry if you disagree.
 
#251
MysticMichael said:
I would define musical talent as having the innate ability to appreciate, to comprehend, and to compose and/or perform music that is of a high technical and/or aesthetic standard (particularly aesthetic, which is by nature subjective. This isn't mathematics, after all. It's art).

While talent typically facilitates the acquisition and development of a "thorough knowledge and understand of music theory", this competence in theory by itself is inadequate to fully qualify as "talent", IMHO, since raw knowledge can be acquired through sheer determination and hard work - despite relative lack of talent. But even someone who understands theory front and back doesn't necessarily know what to actually do with it (i.e. creative vision and purpose). That's where the innate, intuitive sense of what to express and how to express it comes in. This is what most people probably mean when they use the term "talent".

Paul McCartney is perhaps an ideal example. His technical understanding of music is very limited. He can't read a note. But he's self-taught to a high degree of accomplishment on multiple instruments, can sing almost anything, and has composed an amazing catalogue (qualitatively and quantitatively) of compositions through a career of several decades. IMHO, he is within his chosen genre(s) a far more talented musician than anyone who has all the theory knowledge and reading/arranging chops - but can't do any of what McCartney can do.

My, this has all become far too cerebral a discussion for a Gene Simmons thread. I apologize.

Sex, drugs, and rock & roll!!! :bassist:

MM
Click to expand...

Well Put, honestly and subjectively. Carry ON!
 
#253
5StringBlues said:
From Websters Dictionary:

Main Entry: mu·si·cian
Pronunciation: \myü-ˈzi-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : instrumentalist

— mu·si·cian·ly \-lē\ adjective

— mu·si·cian·ship \-ˌship\ noun


We will let you have your definition.Please respect ours.Thank you,drive thru please.............
Click to expand...

iNTRESTING, A conductor, a composer, defining a 14th century word, all were studied in musical education back then and now. to be an conductor, you have to have a high advanced degree in music to be one.
 
#256
5StringBlues said:
FWIW Paul McCartney CAN read music now.He can WRITE ( notes on a sheet of paper) music now.He WROTE a symphony in 1997.By your definition or anyone's:He is a musician.
Click to expand...

5StringBlues said:
:rolleyes: If you feel you must be right about everything,yes.You need to figure out how to melt down and mainline semantics 'cuz you are hooked on them.................
Click to expand...

I'm giving facts, but some of you guys give semantical responses or one word idioms because you can't read music and you have to justify your inabilities or unwillingness to do so. enough said.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back