Modern Musicians VS Musicians from older days...

Keyzer

Thought I'd share my thoughts on this.

I'm reading a book about Duane Allman at the moment - phenonmenally talented and underrated guitarist in my opinion. Reason behind this is because, for years, I have tried to play slide guitar with not much luck. This was mainly down to laziness on my part. It sounded terrible because I didn't put enough time or effort into it and it was easier to go back to straight up guitar playing.

From reading the book, it strikes me as amazing how the likes of Allman, Clapton and all the other greats from the 60's/70's ever learned the guitar in the first place given the huge amount of resources which are available today to the budding guitarist. Allman, for example, used to sit with his guitar on his lap and rewind his vinyl records with his big toe, over and over, until he mastered a riff. When he was learning to play slide, he literally drove the rest of the band insane. Listening to someone learning slide can be torture. He literally locked himself in a room for three weeks until he could play anything that sounded decent. And then the biggest understatement of all time "...then I got a little better...".

I suppose what I'm getting at is: in this day and age, with the plethora of resources out there, do you think the modern day guitarist/musician has become lazy as opposed to our heroes and legends from decades gone?

Hayte

Not laziness. I mean, most of the musical types I know are working full time and training in their spare time, on their own dime. Most will not get remunerated and they know it.

The problem is now the opposite way around - we are no longer limited by dearth of learning resources. The internet pretty much put an end to that, with online lessons (.mp3 submitted assignments and everything!).

One of the problems now is having to swim through a sea of crap to find anything that is useful, factually accurate and methodical. You need a mentor and professional training, which I'd argue was always the case.

The other problem is simply that a budding, self taught musician in 1970 is a completely different thing to a budding, self taught musician in 2010.

For a start, the lines between song writing and production have long since been blurred and many bedroom musicians that I know dedicate significant time and effort into production and recording. All of them do it with computers and computer software, which has its own unholy learning curve.

The other problem isn't strictly a problem. In 1970 you only heard about the people that made it to the top. Now, you also see all the learning musicians too on youtube and vimeo. You see the guys who are just starting out or "my first rubbish band" posting their demos on their myspace music page. I don't think this last point is a bad thing. Everyone was rubbish once and loads of people played in a rubbish band once (like me!). Its just that 40 years ago, nobody would have heard you, outside the 6 people that turned up to your first shambolic gig.

Now your first rubbish band can reach millions of people all over the world. Theres alot of good that can come of that if you are connected to the right people and you can improve. But just as likely is that you will get shat on, given bad advice, be told to do the wrong things and you'll give up like loads of people do every day.

dfkorg

Shortened attention spans, particularly among younger people are a big issue. Learning an instrument, or learning a technique requires time and discipline. The lack of immediacy or instant satisfaction that is demanded by a society where casual gaming (Wii) and on demand everything (the internet) are considered the norm. Many young people picking up an instrument now, as opposed to 10 years ago, want to learn the very basics as quickly as possible and stop there.

The instant gratification element in modern music plays a part too. Flicking through TV I saw Britain's Got Talent, and one of the judges criticised an act for not grabbing their attention from the off. Music today distinctly lacks elements of light & shade, as well as atmosphere. Listen to successful acts from the last 5/6 years and then listen to Oasis, INXS, The Smiths, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins or any major act from the 80's or 90's. The depth of the songs by the latter acts will shock you when compared to modern bands. Arctic Monkeys are a prime example of what I mean.

Unfortunately young people would rather play like Two Door Cinema Club than the Allman Brothers.

On that note

http://youtu.be/K7A2acBVENA

Rigsby

Interesting topic. All the points made so far are valid. I would just like to add that quite apart from the musicianship itself, and how a person reached a given level, in the "older" days there was an atmosphere of experiment and discovery. Bands/artists were not afraid to push the boundaries, and more importantly record companies were willing to sign them. In those days it was generally the bands, and not the record companies that dictated what the general public listened to.

Jamie Starr

As a young person interested in music, and a guitarist currently learning bass and bits of piano, I've thought about this issue now and then.

I think the guys you've mentioned, like Clapton, when they were growing up in the 1950s, it was certainly amazing just how dedicated they were in learning their instruments. Rewinding a vinyl again and again to learn a guitar phrase or riff, especially in the UK where blues and rock and roll exposure would've been limited, seems crazy even to me: for the first few years of learning guitar I could barely be arsed doing it on my CD player!

I certainly think the limited options you would've had as a child in those days (not too many distractions), a point made in the above posts, is a reason why these guys became so proficient. One thing I would say though, is that when they were learning guitar, at this time, they would have been looked down upon as aspiring musicians, due to the jazz and classical traditions that went before them. So, when they started out with their relatively new electric or acoustic instruments in rock and roll bands, they would've been perceived as musical dregs! Much like the way a lot of young people are seen now.

Another thing to consider is when these men and women were learning their instruments, the musical genres around them were extremely limited. Now we have psychedelic rock, rap, punk, and so on: what I'm saying is that the amount of styles around now, and the musical ground that's already been traversed, can be rather daunting to a new musician- and it takes a lot more to be a seasoned one, with gear, recording, instruments being so more abundant than they would've been in Clapton's time: there's so much more to focus on with recorded music now.

I don't think modern musicians are lazier. Using the X Factor or one of those panel shows as a yard stick for young musicians (though on the face of things it looks like a pretty accurate way of sizing them up), I know people my age who are able to embrace the new technology available to them, while still keeping a lot of the old-school values of hardwork and original musicianship. Bands like The Beatles, Radiohead etc. would still be my musical idols. Just like Clapton's wouldn't have been the bands around him at a young age, like Cliff and the Shadows or something, but players like Robert Johnson and Led Belly.

That was a bit of a wayward post, but I'm young and can't be arsed constructing a coherent one.

Keyzer

Valid points from all - thanks for contributing...

Hayte

I think its a great myth that young people have shorter attention spans, are lazier and aren't as creative.

"grabbing someone's attention" right off is a monumental task, when there are not only thousands of skilled contemporaries but also thousands of skilled artists that came before and set the standards. It is just a fact of modern music that there is so much of it produced, that only a handful will grab your attention at any one time.

What you have now, more than at any other time, is choice. There is just as much experimentation going on now as there ever was. You just need to put in some effort to find it. Some of the most astonishing and creative musicians I have ever seen were not signed to any label, did not enjoy any kind of commercial success and if not for the internet, would be completely unknown outside of their home town.

If you want to listen to people that are really breaking down boundaries (because hey, its not like they have anything to lose or any reputation to uphold), then you need to get involved with your local scene. The days of having creativity spoonfed to you on TV and radio is long over.

Thats not to say it doesn't happen, but the traditional means by which we have music introduced to us through radio and television has become very formal and it is now highly monetized. If you hear something good on TV you just have to come to terms with the fact that these days, it is variously the result of a business decision, for business ends. Whilst I do like plenty of popular music and have popular influences, there are times when I need to get away from that because it just does my head in.

Hayte

When it comes to song writing, one of the big issues I have is the idea that now we have "too much choice". We've gone over the good so now heres the bad.

I do not treat song writing and production as phases to be handled by different professionals. To me they are just part of the same thing, for better or worse. I know several musicians who are not just instrumentalists but also hack job producers. Not professionally trained, but taught themselves enough to get their own job done. There is more emphasis on music being multidisciplinary now. You have more and more people that bring more than just skill with an instrument to the table, they also record and produce their own songs, in their own bedrooms.

I have a very real issue with formal education not reaching people, lost as it is amongst the noise. It leads to folks (like me) sitting at home with 100+ freeware plugins, trying to figure out the art for themselves. There is no money in music for most musicians, other than the few that knowingly or otherwise can be sold as a franchise or business (and even then they usually get a raw deal unless those musicians are also savvy businessmen). There is little incentive for people to go into some sort of formal training when there are few reliable career prospects.

There is alot of creativity that can come in spite of all this, but for every individual that finds their own path to success in this industry, hundreds more just get lost at sea and give up. Its a terrible vocation in my opinion.

As I get older, I am already beginning to see the mid to late 90s with rose tinted glasses. Everyone remembers the good, but we have no trouble forgetting the totally forgettable. In 20 years time I have no doubt that I will be hailing the mid 90s as the greatest era of music in the 20th century (coincident with the best times of life as if that wasn't a surprise).

I just want this post to exist as a written record so that in 20 years time, when I'm going "bah, kids today!", someone with some sense will quote this post back to me and remind me why nobody ever achieved anything by dwelling obsessively on the past.

balducci

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLQTbmUYI4A

yeah, the kids these days are just rubbish

CianRyan

As far as **** bands reaching millions of people goes, this is a great example of it.
I toured with these lads across the UK last summer, 5 dates from top to bottom and in every city the kids were going mental for them.
Thing is, they're terrible. Both the songs they write and how they play them.
It's hard to find a lower standard of musicianship.
They were packing venues with ~500/600 people and this summer they were playing venues with over 1000 people a show.

I just don't get it...

Shocking stuff.

I've seen so many bands like these on my travels.
Just shows what some terrible equipment and a good manager can do.

What kind of bands got to go on their first big tours and pull that amount of people back as early of the 90s even?





Ps. Swept the floor with them every night. :cool:

Rigsby

CianRyan wrote: »

As far as **** bands reaching millions of people goes, this is a great example of it.
I toured with these lads across the UK last summer, 5 dates from top to bottom and in every city the kids were going mental for them.
Thing is, they're terrible. Both the songs they write and how they play them.
It's hard to find a lower standard of musicianship.
They were packing venues with ~500/600 people and this summer they were playing venues with over 1000 people a show.

I just don't get it...

Shocking stuff.

I've seen so many bands like these on my travels.
Just shows what some terrible equipment and a good manager can do.

What kind of bands got to go on their first big tours and pull that amount of people back as early of the 90s even?





Ps. Swept the floor with them every night. :cool:

I have often wondered what the attraction was with these kind of bands. It is not a modern phenomenon though. Back in the 60's the "Monkees" only had two instrument playing members. Granted, the songs were (debatably ) reasonably good, but most were written by someone else. Same goes for the "Beach Boys". Apart from the genius that was Brian Wilson, the rest of the band had little or no knowledge of how to play a musical instrument. A lot of their hits were recorded by session musicians. Thanks to Wilson, the songs were of a high standard. I know it's silly to compare the bands in your post, with the "Beach Boys", but I'm sure you get my point.

CianRyan

It's just semi decent looking lads.
No matter how much I tell my niece that they're terrible and their drummer is an ass hole, she still tells me about how amazing they (him mostly) are.

I'd agree with The Monkeys, but I really like The Beach Boys.
I'm not sure if they have yet, but Room 94's manager was talking to us and she let slip that she was thinking of getting song writers in. Sure, when we were with them, the singer and drummer's brother was helping write most of their songs.
The old guitarist soon left and the older brother is now in full time. I wouldn't be surprised if they have real song writers in for some soon enough.

I think the key to eliminating these bands is to keep teenage girls away from music 'till they're 18.:rolleyes:

Grolschevik

CianRyan wrote: »

I think the key to eliminating these bands is to keep teenage girls away from music 'till they're 18.:rolleyes:

Nail and head!

[EDIT: Oops! Just realised that that could sound very rude in the context of 18-year-old girls! :pac:]

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

I dont really take notice of "rock" bands aimed at teenage girls. The music channels on sky are full of bands like that who look and sound the exact same. They have a short shelf life, one maybe two albums and thats it.

As a guitarist, I was stuck in a root for a while. I spent the last 3 days in Ballyshannon at the Rory Gallagher festival, all I can say is I dont want to leave my guitar down now. Really want to get lessons to improve my lead playing.

Rigsby

CianRyan wrote: »

I really like The Beach Boys

Dont get me wrong...so do I.

Grolschevik wrote: »

Nail and head!

Agreed.

rcaz

The kinds of songs that were being written when the Monkees and Beach Boys were around were relatively new forms of music, weren't they? What, like 10 or 20 years old?

Now all that stuff is 50 or 60 years old. The recording equipment is better but the forms and progressions and hooks and harmonies are the same.

Sadie Uneven Box wrote:

As a guitarist, I was stuck in a root for a while. I spent the last 3 days in Ballyshannon at the Rory Gallagher festival, all I can say is I dont want to leave my guitar down now. Really want to get lessons to improve my lead playing.

If we're talking about old musicians vs. new musicians, and what makes the music exciting, improving lead playing isn't enough anymore. That stuff was all perfected in the 60s and 70s and developed, but chops aren't enough to make interesting music or push music forward anymore. Anyway, Paganini did chops better than anyone in the 1800s.

New musicians have so much to work with, so much technology that can do absolutely anything you could imagine. Pure Data and SuperCollider are two completely free computer programs that you can build your own systems in to do incredible things, however you imagine them. I don't get why so many people still just settle at strumming chords.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

El Pr0n wrote: »

If we're talking about old musicians vs. new musicians, and what makes the music exciting, improving lead playing isn't enough anymore. That stuff was all perfected in the 60s and 70s and developed, but chops aren't enough to make interesting music or push music forward anymore.

Well im trying to learn what is a new genre to me, rather than create one!

damonjewel

Keyzer wrote: »

I suppose what I'm getting at is: in this day and age, with the plethora of resources out there, do you think the modern day guitarist/musician has become lazy as opposed to our heroes and legends from decades gone?

I have thought about this and cant come up with a truly definite answer but here it goes. I think if poor old Duane Allman came back to life he'd be astonished at how guitar playing has progressed from the blues licks of classic rock to the dexterous shredding that is out there today. I'm not arguing one style is better than the other (or indeed all the other in between styles) but whatever style you play it still demands a lot of practice to master it. Therefore i don't think there is a laziness today as there are plenty of masterful musicians, amateur and professional, who couldn't play the way they do by being lazy.

As someone who is self thought and playing for 25 years I think the resources available today are brilliant, the problem is more how to filter out the bad from the good (e.g. online tabs, ok some have been useful in trying to nail a chord that I couldn't figure out but for most online tabs I found their quality usually veer between poor and mediocre). As an example of the good I'd recommend Richard Lloyd's Alchemical guitarist series to anyone interested in improving their lead playing.

The discussion here has somewhat grown from the OP's initial question to a new v old. Therefore may I make the case for Concept in music. I find that a lot of bands\musicians that you'll see live in Dublin come across to me as having an inherent inertia because they don't have a distinctive concept or direction. I guess this could may cause issue with a few of you but I firmly believe whatever the style and however well its played it will be easily forgotten if it does not have a distinctive direction. For instance many of the successful British rock acts of the sixties and seventies seemed to have been in Art school, e.g. David Bowie, Roxy Music, John Lennon, John Lydon. My point here is that I think the influence of art, concept, design and direction had a major impact on them and their distinctive styles. Ok I am not saying if you have direction you'll have success, however I cant see how you can have recognition without it. If you want to captures peoples imaginations then you should be imaginative. I think thats somewhat lost today, and hence the easy option is to become an Arctic monkey or a King of Leon because that what seems the market demands - now thats laziness!

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

@damonjewel, I have to agree with you

Rigsby

Sadie Uneven Box wrote: »

@damonjewel, I have to agree with you

So do I. !

El PrOn correctly mentioned the amount of technology available to today's musicians to use. These are merely tools. It is how you use these tools that makes the difference.

rcaz

Rigsby wrote: »

El PrOn correctly mentioned the amount of technology available to today's musicians to use. These are merely tools. It is how you use these tools that makes the difference.

People seem to want to reject these tools so often though. Like sticking to a guitar means your music is 'more real' than using a computer or something. I think that's one of the biggest reasons so much music, rock music especially, is so stale.

Seziertisch

CianRyan wrote: »

As far as **** bands reaching millions of people goes, this is a great example of it.
I toured with these lads across the UK last summer, 5 dates from top to bottom and in every city the kids were going mental for them.
Thing is, they're terrible. Both the songs they write and how they play them.
It's hard to find a lower standard of musicianship.
They were packing venues with ~500/600 people and this summer they were playing venues with over 1000 people a show.

I just don't get it...

Shocking stuff.

I've seen so many bands like these on my travels.
Just shows what some terrible equipment and a good manager can do.

What kind of bands got to go on their first big tours and pull that amount of people back as early of the 90s even?


Ps. Swept the floor with them every night. :cool:

Just out of curiousity, Cian, do you have anything of you up online? I'm not having a go at you or anything, I genuinely am curious.

Rigsby

El Pr0n wrote: »

People seem to want to reject these tools so often though. Like sticking to a guitar means your music is 'more real' than using a computer or something. I think that's one of the biggest reasons so much music, rock music especially, is so stale.

I dont think anyone "rejects" those tools, they just prefer more traditional instruments maybe. Besides you can have the best tools in the world, but if you are not a skilled "craftsman/woman", they are useless. IMO, it is not the fault of the tools if the music is stale.

CianRyan

Seziertisch wrote: »

Just out of curiousity, Cian, do you have anything of you up online? I'm not having a go at you or anything, I genuinely am curious.

Yep, http://www.facebook.com/downhillirish
I'm not in the band anymore but they're reluctant to take me off the page until they find a permanent replacement.

Very simple stuff and to be honest, I'm not really into it myself but the mates needed someone at the time so I gave them a hand.
I did the last EP with them and was meant to work on the album. I was Involved in writing quite a few songs for the album but I don't know I'd they'll be using them, or even recording any time soon.
Enjoy.

Seziertisch

CianRyan wrote: »

Yep, http://www.facebook.com/downhillirish
I'm not in the band anymore but they're reluctant to take me off the page until they find a permanent replacement.

Very simple stuff and to be honest, I'm not really into it myself but the mates needed someone at the time so I gave them a hand.
I did the last EP with them and was meant to work on the album. I was Involved in writing quite a few songs for the album but I don't know I'd they'll be using them, or even recording any time soon.
Enjoy.

Curiousity satisfied. Thanks.